Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEVALUATIONJUL 31 2019 ST. LUde County, Permitting GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 18-151 SCANNED BY St. Lucie County ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 834 SW Swan Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph:772-807-9191 Fx:772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com Pk0©A D TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE NO. 18-151 . PAGE A 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................'............. 1 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING................................................... 2 3.1 Site Location and Description........................................................ 2 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey......................................................... 2 3.3 Project Understanding.............................................................. 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM................................................................... 3 Table 1 - Field Exploration Program ............. 3 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................. 3 5.1 General Soil Conditions ............................................................. 3 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level ....................................................... 4 5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ................................................... 4 Table 2 - Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results....... 4 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM................................................................ 4 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION......................................................... 5 7.1 General........................................................................... 5 7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations.................................................... 5 7.2.1 Clearing..................................................................... 5 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures........................................................ 5 7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation ....................................... 6 7.3 Building Foundation and Stab Design ................................................. 7 8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 8 8.1 Flexible Pavement Design............................................................ 8 8.2 Rigid Pavement Sections............................................................ 8 9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING FREQUENCY...................................................... 9 10.0 CLOSURE................................................................................ 10 • Figure No. 1 Site Vicinity Maps • Figure No. 2 Field Work Location Plan • Sheet No. 1 General Notes (Soil Boring, Sampling and Testing Methods) • Sheets No. 2-4 Soil Boring Profiles and Exfilttation Test Results • Appendix I USDA Soil Survey Information • Appendix II CBR Test Result • Appendix III AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. WWW.AACEINC.COM ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC GeotechnicaL Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental consulting AVCON, Inc. 5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32822 Attention: Mr. Robert "Bobby" Palm, P.E. Senior Project Manager - Airports GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AACE File No. 18-151 May 8, 2018 In accordance with your request and authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (RACE) has completed a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above referenced project. The purpose of performing this exploration was to explore shallow soil types and groundwater levels as they relate to the, proposed airport improvement project, and restrictions which these soil and groundwater conditions may place on the various project features. Our work included Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, auger borings, soil hydraulic conductivity (exfiltration) testing, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report documents our explorations and tests, presents ourfindings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summary is intended to provide a brief overview of our findings and recommendations; however, the report should be read in its entirety by the project design team members. • The proposed building sites, at the locations explored, were found to be underlain by soils which are generally satisfactory to support the proposed airport hangar and auxiliary building construction on conventional shallow foundations. A maximum design foundation bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for the proposed structures. • Typical pavement sections consisting of an asphaltic or rigid concrete wearing surface atop a calcareous base, followed by a stabilized subgrade on compacted natural soils is considered appropriate for the project. • Site preparation procedures will include clearing, stripping and grubbing of all surface vegetation, organic topsoil, former pavement, etc. followed by proofrolling of building and pavement areas. • The groundwater table was encountered at depths of about 4 to 5 feet below the existing grades. 834 Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -2- AACE File No. 18-151 ' 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 3.1 Site Location and Description The subject site is located within the southeast portion of the Treasure Coast International Airport (TCIA), northwest of the northern terminus of Jet Center Terrace, in St. Lucie County, Florida (within Section 29, Township 34 South and Range 40 East). A Site Vicinity Map (2017 aerial photograph) which depicts the location of the site is included on the attached. Figure No. 1. The site location is further shown superimposed on the 1983 "Fort Pierce, Florida" USGS topographic Quadrangle Map also included on Figure No. 1. The Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property as being relatively level with approximate surface elevations of 19-20 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The subject site currently consists of vacant, grass -covered land with a decommissioned asphalt - paved taxiway (Taxiway'D') crossing the southern portion of the site and remnants of a former runway or taxiway crossing the northern portion of the site. 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey Accordingtothe USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the predominant surficial soil type in the area where the site is located is the Eawnwood and Mvakka sands (USDA.Mao.Unit 21). This soil type is noted by the USDA to consist of sandy marine deposits originating from flatwoods found on historic marine terraces, with sands present to depth in excess of 80 inches below grade. The approximate location of the subject site was superimposed on an aerial photograph obtained from the USDA Web Soil Survey and is shown on Figure No. 1. Further, the USDA Web Soil Survey summary report is included in Appendix I. 3.3 Project Understanding Based on our current understanding of the TCIA improvement.project, the following features are proposed: • A 30,000 sgft. (±) pre-engineered metal hangar with an estimated height of 60 feet. • Approximately 4,100 sgft. of office space and 5,500 sgft. of shop space will be constructed in connection with the hangar (anticipated 15-20 foot building height). • A 300,000-gallon ground.storage tank (GST) and fire pump building. • A flexible pavement section for conventional vehicle parking. • Both, flexible and rigid pavement sections/aprons for aircraft traffic/parking. • A stormwater retention/detention area (i.e. pond). We have not been provided with any specific structural information relative to the proposed hangar and building(s); however, we have made the following assumptions based on our experience from similar projects: • It is assumed that the hangar building will be a metal building supported on individual perimeter columns, with a roof structure spanning from one side to the other. • Maximum compression column loads are estimated to be 250 kips/column. • Conventional shallow foundations will be the preferred foundation solution. • Upliftforceson thestructure(s) will be countered by the weight of the shallow foundations as well as any overburden soils. • Minimal, if any, fill will be placed to raise the site grades. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT AACE File No.18-151 Page-3- Should any of these assumptions and/or our understanding of the proposed project features vary significantly from the current design, we request that we be notified to ensure that the recommendations presented herein are suitable for the project. Details of the provided Site Plan are presented as our Field Work Location Plan, FigureJNo. 2. 4.0 FIELD E%PLORATION PROGRAM To explore subsurface conditions at the site, the exploration program summarized in Table 1 below was completed: Table 1- Field Exploration Program Field Work Type Standard # of Borings Depth Below Grade [feet] Location Standard Penetration Test ASTM 10 15-30 Refer to (SPT) D1586 Figure No.2 Auger ASTM 2 12 Refer to D1452 Figure No. 2 Soil Hydraulic SFWMD 1 6 Refer to Conductivity Test I ERPIMI'I Figure No. 2 'Note to Ta le 1: 1 SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit In ormation Manua, Volume IV 2009 Version Our field exploration program was completed in the period Apri120through May 2, 2018. The field work locations shown on Figure No. 2 were determined in the field by our field crew using the provided site plan, onlineaerial photographs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled GPS instrument. Atmospheric disturbances and local weather conditions may affect the accuracy of the GPS instrument readings and the shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. We preliminarily anticipate that the actual locations are within 15 feet of those shown on Figure No. 2. Summaries ofAACE's field procedures are presented on Sheet No. 1 and the individual boring and test profiles are presented on the attached on Sheets No. 2'-4. Samples obtained during performance of the borings were visually classified in the field, and representative portions of the samples weretransported'to our laboratory in sealed sample jars for further classification. The soil samples recovered from our explorations will be kept in our laboratory for 60 days, then discarded unless you specifically request otherwise. 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ' S.1 General Soil Conditions Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated on the soil boring profiles presented on the attached Sheets No. 2-4. The stratification of the boring profiles represents our interpretation of the field boring logs and the results of laboratory examinations of the recovered samples. The stratification lines representthe approximate boundary between soil types. Theactual transitions may be more gradual than implied. In general, atthe locationsand depths explored,the majorityofoursoil borings encountered a thin layer of topsoil (sands with roots/organics) followed by loose to moderately dense fine sands (SP) and occasionally slightly clayey fine sands (SP-SC). TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJEcr Page -4- AACE File No. 18-151 Further, a thin layer of near -surface hardpan -type soils was encountered in approximately half of the completed borings. Hardpan -type soils are near -surface sandy soils where the individual soil particles are cemented together by either calcium -carbonate or iron oxide. The hardpan layers typically vary in thickness from 1 foot to 3 feet and contain low amounts of silt and organic materials. Hardpan layers are often relatively impervious, restrictive to vertical water infiltration, and create a horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Hardpan is generally considered suitable for the support of structures/traffic and also for use as fill. To promote vertical infiltration within ponds and/orexfiltration trench systems, consideration can be given to overexavatingthe hardpan -type soils and replacing them with free-draininggranularsoils. This is discussed further herein. The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only. Please refer to the attached Sheets No. 2-4 for individual soil profile details. 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level The groundwater table depth asencountered inthe borings during the field investigations isshown adjacentto the soil profiles on the attached Sheets No. 2-4. As can be seen, the groundwater table was generally encountered at depths ranging from about 4 feet.to about 5 feet below the existing ground surface, with this range likely attributed to similar, localized variations in site topography. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. 5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing One (1) soil hydraulic conductivity test was performed at the locations shown on Figure No. 2. In general, the test was performed in substantial accordance with methods described in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual (ERPIM), Volume IV and yielded the following results: Table 2 - Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results Test No. Groundwater Depth (ft-bls) Flow Rate, Q (cfs) Hydraulic Conductivity, K (cfs/sqf - ft head) EX-1 4'.5 1 3.6 x 10.3 1.3 x 104 The results from Table 2 are also shown on Sheet No. 4 along with the encountered soil profile at the test location. We recommend utilizing a factorof safetyof 2 when using the k-value presented herein in the design of stormwaier retention and detention facilities. 6.6 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Our drillers observed the soil recovered from the SPTsampler and the augers, placed the recovered soil samples in moisture proof containers, and maintained a log for each boring. The recovered soil samples, along with the field boring logs, were transported to our Port St. Lucie soils laboratory where they were visually examined by AACE's project engineer to determine their engineering classification. The visual classification of the samples was performed in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, USCS. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -5- AACE File No. 18-151 Further, to aid in the visual classification of the soils, representative samples were selected for limited index laboratory testing, consisting of "percent fines" tests (defined as the percent, by dry weight, of soil passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, ASTM D1140), moisture content tests (ASTM D2216), and organic content tests (ASTM D2974). The soil classifications and other pertinentdata obtained from our explorations and laboratory examinations and tests are reported on the soil profiles presented on Sheets No. 2-4. Finally, as requested, one sample of near -surface sands was collected from within the proposed apron area for the purpose of performing a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTM D1883) on the sample. The sample was obtained following removal of the upper 6 inches (±) of topsoil and was composited from a depth of about 6 inches to about 18 inches below grade. The result of the CBR test is included in Appendix II. 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 7.1 General Based on the findings of our site exploration, our evaluation of subsurface conditions, and judgment based on our experience with similar projects, we conclude thatthe soils underlyingthis site are generally satisfactory to support the proposed hangar and auxiliary building construction on conventional shallow foundations. However, in our opinion, the bearing capacity of the loose near -surface soils should be improved in order to reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation performance. The general soil improvement we recommend includes proofrolling the individual building sites site with a heavy vibratory roller. Following are specific recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation, design, and pavement systems for the project. 7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations 7.2.1 Clearing Thesitesurface should be cleared, grubbed and stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, trash, debrisand former taxiway remnants. 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures Following clearing, the proposed building and pavement areas should be proofrolled with a 10 ton (minimum) vibratory roller; anysoft, yielding soils detected should be excavated and replaced with clean, compacted backfill that conforms with the recommendations below. Sufficient passes should, be made during the proofrolling operations to produce dry densities not less than 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum dry density of the compacted material to depths of 2 feet below the compacted surface, or 2 feet below the bottom of footings, whichever is lower. In any case, the building and pavement areas should receive not less than 10 overlapping passes, half of them in each of two perpendicular directions. After the exposed surface has been proofrolled and tested to verify that the desired dry density has been obtained, the building and pavement areas may be filled to the desired grades. All fill material should conform to the recommendations below. It should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. Each layer should be compacted to a dry density not less than 95 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum value. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -6- AACE File No. 18-151 ' After completion of the general site preparations discussed above, the bottom of foundation excavations dug through the compacted natural ground, fill or backfill, should be compacted so as to density soils loosened during or after the excavation process, or washed or sloughed into the excavation priortothe placement offorms. Avibratory, walk -behind plate compactorcan be used forthis final densification immediately prior to the placement of reinforcing steel, with previously described density requirements to be maintained below the foundation level. Following removal of foundation forms, backfill around foundations should be placed in lifts six inches or less in thickness, with each lift individually compacted with a plate tamper. The backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least95 percentofthe modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density. 7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation All fill material underthe buildings and pavement should consist of clean sands free oforganics and other deleterious materials. The fill material should have not more than 12 percent bydryweight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and no particle larger than 3 inches in diameter. Backfill behind Walls, if any, should be particularly pervious, with not more than 4 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. #200 sieve. 'During the excavation forthe dry detention pond on the northern section of the site, the following soils will likely be encountered: Organic topsoil is not considered suitable for use as any type of fill otherthan in landscaped areas, or other non-structural areas. Fine sands (SIP) should be suitable to serve as fill soils and with proper moisture control should densify using conventional compaction equipment. Soils obtained from below the water table may require time to dry sufficiently. However, these materials should be suitable for relatively unrestricted use as fill and roadway embankment. Slightly clayey fine sand (SP-SC) is suitable for structural fill, but will likely be more difficult to compact due to their inherent nature to retain excess soil moisture. If the use of slightly clayey soils is. desired, it may be necessary to stockpile these soils in order for them to drain. Thinner lifts (perhaps 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness) may be required for placement and compaction of these soils. Further, it may become necessary to mix these soils with drier, cleaner granular sands prior to placement to increase the "workability" of these soils. Approximately half of our borings encountered a thin, near -surface layer of weakly cemented dark brown/brown fine sands with minor amounts of silt and organics, locally known as hardpan -type soils. This hardpan stratum may be significantly more cemented and hard in areas notexplored. While hardpan is generally suitable for use as a fill material, hardpan -type soils can be challenging for several reasons: Hardpan can be difficult.to excavate, often requiring special equipment, especially in confined excavations such as utility trenches. Excavated hardpan -type soils are often boulder -size chunks of cemented soils which are not easily broken down for re -use as structural fill. When pulverized into fragments that can be compacted to an adequately dense matrix, the in -place soil often fails the relative compaction test because during laboratory preparation, the soil is pulverized into smaller particles, resulting in a denser laboratory matrix than that which occurs in the field. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJEcr Page -7- AACE File No.18-151 With respect to the proposed stormwater retention pond, the hardpan -type soils are often relatively impervious and create a horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Consideration can be given to overexcavating such hardpan -type soils from within the proposed stormwater pond areas so as to facilitate a more rapid drainage, if needed. Backfill in the retention areas should consist of free -draining sandy materials with fines content less than 4 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The backfill should be placed in level lifts of 12-18 inches and receive some measure of compaction which likely can be accomplished by overlapping travel paths of loaded earthmoving equipment. The depth of this overexcavation will be dependent upon the pond design. Z3 Building Foundation and Slab Design Afterthe foundation soils have been prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable for supporting the proposed hangar building, water tank and pump house construction on conventional shallow foundations proportioned for an allowable bearing stress of 2,500 pounds per square foot [psf), or less. To provide an adequate factor of safety against a shearing failure in the subsoils, all continuous foundations should be at least 18 incheswide, and all individual column footings should have a minimum width of 36 inches. Exterior foundations should bear at least 24 inches below adjacent outside final grades. Based upon the boring information and the assumed loading conditions, we estimate that the recommended allowable bearing stress will provide a minimum factor of safety in excess of two against bearing capacity failure. With the site prepared and the foundations designed and constructed as recommended, we anticipate total settlements of one inch or less, and differential settlement between adjacent similarly loaded footings of lessthan one -quarter ofan,inch. Because of the granular nature of the subsurface soils, the majority of the settlements should occur during construction; post -construction settlement should be minimal. We recommend that representatives of AACE inspect all footing excavations in order to verify that footing bearing conditions are consistent with expectations. Foundation concrete should not be cast over a foundation surface containing topsoil or organic soils, trash of any kind, surface made muddy by, rainfall runoff, or groundwater rise, or loose soil caused by excavation or other construction.work. Reinforcing steel should also be clean at the time of concrete casting. If such conditions develop during construction, the reinforcing steel must be lifted out and the foundation surface reconditioned and approved by AACE. After the ground surface is proofrolled and filled, if necessary, as recommended in this report, the floor slab can be placed directly on the prepared subgrade. For design purposes, we recommend using a subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the compacted shallow sands. In our opinion, a highly porous base material is not necessary. We recommend to use a minimum of 10 mil polyolefin film as the maincomponent of a vapor barrier system. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -8- AACE File No.18-151 8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Flexible Pavement Design We recommend a standard -duty (20-year design life) pavement section consisting of an asphaltic concrete wearing surface on a calcareous base course supported on stabilized subbase over well - compacted subgrade. • After clearing and proofrolling the site surface as previously recommended, the surficial soils should be suitable to support the pavement sections. The embankment material should be compacted to a dry density of 98 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 or AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density of the compacted soil to a depth of one foot below the surface. • The subbase material to a depth of 12 inches should have a minimum Limerock Bearing . Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 40and it should be compacted tout least 98 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 or AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density. The surficial fine sand(SP) on this site does not appear to have the required LBR value and may require mixing. • The base course may consist of crushed limerock or coquina and should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 100. We recommend a base course at least 8 inches thick for standard pavements which may be placed and compacted in a single layer. All base course material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density: • We recommend an FDOT Type S-1 asphaltic wearing surface. It should have a Marshall stability not less than 1000 pounds. We recommend a wearing surface 2 inches thick on standard pavement. Care must be exercised to place the asphalt over dry, well primed base material. The above recommendations should provide high qualityflexible pavement. If greater risk of more frequent pavement maintenance and repair is acceptable, then the above recommendations could be relaxed somewhat. We remain available for additional consultations relative to the desired pavement system. 8.2 Rigid Pavement Design Rigid pavements (for aircraft apron/taxiway, not runway) should have a similar embankment, subbase and`base section as for the flexible. pavement presented above (see Section 8.1). Note that it is assumed that a maximum aircraft tire contract pressure of 200 psi will be subjected to the rigid pavement. The base course surface should be saturated immediately priorto concrete placement to provide adequate moisture for curing of the concrete. We recommend an eight -inch thick pavement section of reinforced Portland cement concrete (reinforcement to be designed by others to control and provide for tensile capacity and load transfer between adjacent slabs). The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 5,000 psi. For the recommended concrete thickness, construction control joints should be placed no more than 15 feet apart in either direction and should be at least one -quarter of the thickness of the concrete. They should be cut as soon as the concrete will support the crew and equipment (8 to 12 hours). The concrete should be cured by moist curing or by application. of a liquid curing compound. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -9 AACE File No.18-151 9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING FREQUENCY We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program to verify that, all site preparation and foundation and pavement construction is conducted in accordance with the appropriate plans and specifications. Materials testing and inspection services should be provided by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. An experienced engineering technician should monitor all stripping and grubbing efforts, and observe the proof -rolling operations to verify that the appropriate number of passes are applied to the subgrade. In -situ density tests should be conducted during filling activities and below all footings, floor slabs and pavementareas to verify that the required densities have been achieved. In -situ density values should be compared to laboratory Proctor moisture -density results for each of the different natural and fill soils encountered. Finally, we recommend inspecting and testing the construction mate rialsfor the foundations and other structural components. . In Southeast Florida, earthwork testing is typically performed on an on -call basis when the contractor has completed a portion of the work. The test result from a specific location is only representative of a larger area if the contractor has used consistent means and methods and the soils and lift thicknesses are practically uniform throughout. The frequency of testing can be increased and full-time construction inspection can be provided to account for variations. We recommend that the following minimum testing frequencies be utilized: In proposed parking areas, a minimum frequency of one in -place densitytestfor each 5,000 square feet of area should be used. The existing, natural ground should be tested to a depth of 12 inches at the prescribed frequency. Each 12-inch lift of fill, as well as the stabilized subgrade (where applicable) and base should be tested at this frequency. Drainage and utility piping backfill should be tested at minimum frequency of one in -place density test for each 12-inch lift for each 200 lineal feet of pipe. Additional tests should be performed in backfill for manholes, structures, inlets, etc. In proposed structural areas, the minimum frequency of in -place density testing should be one test for each 2,000 square feet of structural area. In -place density testing should be performed at this minimum frequency for a depth'of 2 feet below natural ground and for every 1-foot lift of fill placed in the structural area. In addition, density tests should be performed in each column footing for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing surface. For continuous or wall footings, density tests should be performed at a minimum frequency of one test for every 50 lineal feet of footing, and for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing surface. Representative samples of the various natural ground and fill soils, as well as stabilized subgrade (where applicable) and base materials should be obtained and transported to our laboratory for Proctor compaction tests. These tests will determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the materials tested and will be used in conjunction with the results of the in -place density tests to determine the degree of compaction achieved. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -10- AACE File No. 18-151 10.0 CLOSURE The geotechnical evaluation submitted herein is based on the data obtained from the soil boring and test profiles presented on Sheets No. 1 and 2, and our understanding of the project as previously described. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appendix III. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices for the exclusive use of AVCON, Inc. and St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for the subject project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We are pleased to be of assistance to you on this phase of your project. When we maybe of further service to you or should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, ANDERSEN ANDRE C�QiLSLJI Ep�iS, INC. Certificate of Auth&)n R19imMm F.n �!• No.57955 ;U ro 'S, Peter G. And' . P.E.TATE OF,w�• Principal Engine-FF S°Zr1AVMb Fla, Reg. No. 57�7SdONA;\`���� PGA/DPA:pa David P. Andre, P.E. Principal Engineer Fla. Reg. No. 53969 &76' h$ ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. WWW.AACEINC.COM j� 2017 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Fort Plerce, Flodda") ' ^� 9 20 I '(.._ 1 ... 1 mmmW IV/ waken (may _ r- _. .ems ,i 6 19 1 ..� -,� I SITE - dvn CR-60a EAST 0.. ( 0 31 1.. I Section 29 Township34 South Range 40 East O -Ai 2 NOT TO SCALE /, ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ^� 8UMSmnAw—.P0rt SLWde,R-U983 "24014191 enee"COnc.com CeNflule olANhaNa9nn No. 267M USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP USDA SOIL TYPES ON SUBJECT SITE (Source: USDA Web Sell Survey) 21: Lawnwood and Myakka sands SITE VICINITY MAPS I TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONALAIRPORT Checked by: DPA Dale: May x0le MROPROJECT MCE FlIa Ne: FI ure No.1 ST. LUCIE IE COUNTY. FLORIDA 1-1 g LEGEND TBA h Standard Penetration Test Boring Ex-# m SFWMD Exfiltration Test AB-# - Solid -Stem Auger Boring CBR . v CBR Sample Location 7. tea;. £ FF s a ® '4 I , ✓ Or .�� 1 ^t 'Ji zp NOTE 1 Shown and noted field work locations are approximate. All field work locations were located using the provided boundary and topographic survey, obtained aerial 2 photographs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled GPS Instrument. Atmospheric disturbances and and local weather conditions may affect the accuracy of the GPS instrument readings. As such, the shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree Implied by the method of NOT TO SCALE measurement used. Figure No. 2 Source: Site Plan/Geotechnical Exhibit prepared by AVCON (dated March 2018) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION om..m by: PGA ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT cnecxea by oPA a]•swswan A•anus, Port3t bck, FLiCsel T]TSP]-0191 vwwMeElnc.mm FIELD WORK LOCATION PLAN MROHANGARPROJECT wmnum aauhmbatran NM Te15e ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA RACE FSe Na:16151 No. 2 SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS (abbreviated version for project specific methods and soil conditions) GEXER/a Anaenen Men ConsuNnBPa101naen.me.(AACE)hm gaameah.subs lfaumndW=s omyallml... Dan. aMaa and e1 Me Wee MnW. They mexhi no mwmuwn.halm lwme mlMav Ma hoXomgMeetheMbs. At butlms supWM.suRace mltlem Dust otherFrom Mmo eeuarea In Ma Ma n Oa may exist and should 0e antl<Ipa1M. The worm l on npetlea on she hen, lees b hued on aua Rell My. ame as elf -I u m natlon N ou beonmry of NehMd moll samples meetsyom Me harm... The abtlnatlm snarl w Me logs badmen sufl typed Is eppoaNub only. The actual ameaHon Yam One eats b wasim se, bB.do. and India.... The gmuminalea d.1 m m vn we barn g loge In Me dame tmmI the drier ohanmea In Me bonhola Rho" llwea d9Nd Theasvdrbrals meY M1su haen lnManwd hYMeaml^B pm[edues, eepedaay In hoangs made by romerY urging MM dn[WYc chilling mud. M mcurb dedmYoatlon a gun rndenter lave) nObaemm. heirte m... W sul.w. aelmine dens. FWCWenw In Bmunaysler.. I...h.m the rein ... as .Ndmma Th..beenee.1. mantivHYl Inwl an bee Indiana. ua-a-^d.ma. I. evmw m,"t wars..Mn emnneeµ®wnnulh..newnYndnMnl,erinB leutlon et ewm .Mee pelnt N thnv. SGI10.5TEN AUGER BORINGS Aug®hal(A w01"i) me man Ms,aremdvtly m'.' mnneums sanpbg of may mama Man to Me Fonts sus ma In dRumd. Aµ. (IOd mm)emm.l., mnanamenight, 1. auger themberIwMenntlngnaw elrt9eMhwFrel woMa e^eMmsrwlUsml meads Cla 1paeree ey amme,.Mlep. wimple pb ... 1N hywlm!In Me Me mgeraessm ground WMM mmWeP andhe me AR.E.btlummmFMe M9dutlna:nd exam¢ umetessal n wgx ae P. me reFmM m me raeE xm mbomwy Is, aamanraum and mxwe. n n®::ary. The S... ismm4tlbn Tem Rtel) la. wMIY ecupma meand of M stun heading a founeatlon.. (ASTM 0,16e61. A.11LL6m1 Iona, 24nN Mamm)OD. ap4ts-0 amulet mused dtothe end of a W^ B a MM n B Food Is dMen 34 Rebus(a.6a m) Ina the .mund hS summmaM Mass of a 141;mnd (SyS hit hso m r heel, ampping. IRehm. (O.Tam). Us number of them needed for men 6Menes (MMm)1ewmMb po mmagmIs nmmea Th.dumathehlomnaulndfcpmlel onmf Me MdNedo6Mtt(0.1Yn1 Iwamanb aperchsuomm�stlEMSIneIM mWta Xxe M. AnetheteskyaR empletb anwmbd hmn Ms g�m,M me mr^nm m.vmw dlaua a.aalpFm ord,m telslmm.ml.mws. d Nnaue naa benempWWlvconelada woo Vaeoue Wlpmperllsagmvbgd cmamesta. aamabaNe dnaenal.undmlmd. ilsonto and: Nab X.vLuea b a yuelXative du[dplbn a d oM devHlly b eoneal W esa Bona: Gaussian... Saes: N-Valu. Oeec Od. Vuryloeso .m10 1am30 NMmndme. f1.10 verse Above Sa Very Nva CoteatVe Solo: I4Value, Mnarblan Out alma VeryHeh BElwa]y bf(11MPa1 2te. Safl 0]S In O.M bI RS to Sa MPaI .IOB NNIuamw BAO.,A MI50m tag NPaI Sb15 MIT lA on. MI1W b30a on.) Isms. buy .uX 2A In 1A.1 Pa) to Wa Wq Abe s. Hard Ahae .mTHIMse.) Names nYw..pm.Pe ..mpma:es,..m..mql.glnlu.a.nauammb:®e.ernol,mnanlemn 4bum NLL�0gnldtweLamemm.Mumgnns.aaanY. NmNs'llummµamweuaed. HFXHD EARTMTOX HESHB ryHYLL CDXMFlX TEH7) a WPrlmmed.r✓nwM1,dmpcwnovNMYmMe WpreeyaemYm M1rbvYPry Naaael0nasbYm nN.�wYm PrtmnmFanvM:menM1 enYVSuacbNAwSOMReaaWAr ge115aWNal PemXLlfelmeOm Yewµ Ve4maN NbY[Imw VeuL CaNNenlaaY.eab H InGAemamrlule XeuBnM IeupNa madulybHwCw btivmnmlmlY IDYCUM Tabu: W webwebllra m<plPYbsonawe Ma ale, ilueYWnefmmwOmmw.Yfbtbaw.ewam.N rtenbneeg6xe wM1tla YfMul:oaYLfalOmMmm m9^ W eadeedmdWednwpwnd slvfam SOInssurne.IMNelnedueexxana�nmrm Yp:^pl�yeM bnmNM.InmabneYaf mmwre.. Wlm �mlw° �mma`mdnma�.:aMm,mh: ae:.a nYwbl'Mmin mu.a.:: l madesmnnn ha P.dameed-moseed 1Is.al to.an examill.natal Mlpaebu w howeeg P,enM. of m. ama lbunn.s. nvuPnnmea anu..m bFe lay..' the LLPM. N.the n.aea sawns, eu remained. Nnahamaw neYmsvaeYWf.vutlmnaW mgmpruenbaonupamOYtlaelkumm nnW ameF.n mma haT,mm.-. crtpHens,aMnnmwYpamHaW upmwuumm:m procMvm FummsweXM1bcvlpnNu. etlitlamMeWenYple,:eelnp�sLmae,eameYM1w UnDu es, Mmms,mealbn BNYmymelb O�nnl W b Weps,uaen Wvalmmum pmevnd ClA MCA N OF IMLe FOR ENOMEEIIMG NWOHEe d..Ic—M-a: an- To-)toI. Remml —ena Q. h.. NnH mml Hb. b w- Ib min) ismmeae.eelethao ......N.Nudnbn M. -m% a. e a.-.nemvbleaamwvdumwmaeu^eq .I lINh: Nn le N max) Mme he No..("Iman, bon .EHaxv: M Xn. m., ua)mNreu. M. an ,a W )mere u.mlems. la M . .sac meeMFm.mIPw is a.. wre N-.H1d -aotlY 00(11µelww .I, .... T. n.4 curna cvummRrF. .S NSi WlneMmm: R-el - uWvlrommMmm.Mntlay.ameoden I.,. ...I, MX : unman " oembl alava .a-w. -men Themebanudumrpuf Wat5fmtNbm)wtomle XOoevmnmmonenubtm Mada "Indt-s eonMlvob leatlnBmamebr AACE Mmugn aepW nnen. mare ..nhe amMlMonce .alb 1. ohred. The text ha.. an ader ed m Me at elewnms er mdry MM ge.na MR-kemlem demomme AYleesmu guns Mm gras euttlng tuts. uaMB dmdImM. nulato Females Me CUMingxeMnole too rem ma ... Venmy....... n s"Random The elnebwB nnla..hkh is henmunde dMn9 mad, Is also used to kmp me mennreq,dc meYh1xx.ffmF.gFinaRxe na."adowMmeam Ube by mawawng an named hRimµaue P.as-bxa.Nw I.. msys. BXManmmanle.m. but..m.mm.w.axpoaXa. paNCUlMvbearlwNans one.. nn.hsauplse m.anamnd Me m c IOU adren to Juan.lnve M.omm. mouth he kuv Me wle a,,.Mlw gnnm Me loan of oaae RmC., RX) u nrtwmBnub. Aflammpl.MmofemstM gs.MehombkoMaMnunMa.b.my.UW a OMI grouMmue lewlh.... Tree TO We is M.. at. by.... a g sighed nth mean ubbd OrgW. GYy tutus. embrid. br lean mewed ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. e2.SWSwan Ammus PORSb Lude,FL3.9ms 7732074191 wweAACRnacom GENERAL NOTES Ceranmmof Mthorbellon Nw26T06 PROJECT NOTES: TB-0 STANDARD PENETRATI( AB-/ AUGER BORING (ASTM EX-0 SFWMD SOIL HYORAUI N SPT RESISTANCE IN B H.x! GROUNDWATER TABLE COB- END OF BORING BLS BELOW LAND SURFACI SP, SP-SC, ETC: [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586) UCTIWTY (EXFILTRAUON) TEST :R FOOT JW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED MC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT (ASTM D2216) -200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE [PERCENT FINES] (ASTM DI140) OC ORGANIC CONTENT (ASTM 2974) DRILL CREW FIRM: OTH 3 AACE DRILL CREW CHIEF: PT DRILL RIG: MOBILE B-57 AND DIEDRICH D-25 ORIWNG METHOD: ROTARY-WASH/BENTONITE SLURRY CASING: NOT NEEDED HAMMER TTPE: SAFETY/MANUAL BORINGS ADVANCED W. HAND AUGER 0-4' IN ALL BORINGS FOR UTILITY CLEARANCE SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: ■ TOPSOIL FINE SAND (SP) FINE SAND P ((SW. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS [HARDPAN-TYPF?] SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONALAIRPORT Checked eY MA pate: may 2016 MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COTY UN. FLORIDA AACE EN a No:1S.15t Sheet No.1 0- ©. 10 w m 15 o I 20 25 F 30 , TB-1 TB-2 TB-3 79-4 DATE: 0/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/02/18 DATE: O5/0 . ....... IN ..... ....................... N • • • ••• N N .._ ¢ w TFOPSOIL - ¢ ... .................. iaPSGa : .. I.........................:. TOPSOIL a GUY ME SAND (SP) j •... :.::: V i:':i' :�:'� CFAT EIXE SAND (SP) .::.: GMY PIXE SANB (SP) 6 DE. BROWN BAND (SP) YC' ED < OP.A A BROWN CENEMED CE ME SA BROWX W/O SILT ME SAXD (SP), T/O SILT x i ': DR. BROWN/FEpORN-BROWN z ---- AND ORGANICC [HARDPAN-TYPf]. ASS... rii: CROWN LME SANG (SP) 4S• y ) :::: .... FINE SAND (SP) . ..S.p.�... �AD: u 2a0 s 1 ............ (--y-1 TAX SL CLAYEY FINE SANG (SP-SC) -200: a ON. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) TAN FINE SOD (SP) �---�--- CREEK -GRAY FINE SAND (SP), '!i....... T/O CLAY . ......... 'i .BROW ........................ TAN/LT. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ,.., .................... ._.............. s.:......... .... ................ ._........... ,. .. __. . ....... .1 3 TAN FINE SOD (SP) : BROWN/ON. BROWN ME SAND (SP) . ........I. ii'i. ............. I.................... BROWN/ON. BROWN, FINE SAND (SP) DIL BROWN SAND (SP) I ........ - ......................... BRCWN/OK SRO" FINE .SAND (SP) 2/IB TB-5 MTE: 09/02/18 . ...:................:.' ToP's6a"" N iop'sbii ...:................ O s V .:'. OK DRAY/GRAY FINE SOD (SP) � :i::i GRAY LIRE SAND (SP) ON. BROWN/REDDISH—BROWN z UN. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED ME SOD (SP) A '5�.. FINE SAND (SP), T/O SILT .. M.D. DRDAIIICS (HARDPAN-IYPE]... 5 CMT SL CLAYEY LINE SANG (SP—SC) IYCr 26 T _� TAN SL CLAM ME ROD (SP—SC) ................:_...:............ TAN/LT. BROWN SAND (SP) - I : REDDISH -BROWN FINE SOD (Sp) ....... :................. . ............ .. ..... ... .. ..... . i REOWSM BROWN FINE SWO (SP) REDDISH -BROWN EWE 500 (SP) RNE SAND (BP) BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 1 :�ii DROWN FINE SAND (SP) RAYRNE SAND (SP), i:' ON. CRAT RNE SOD SPT/0SHELL MGM ( ) EOB O 30' BLS E08 O 10' B15 EOB O SO. BLS .......................... ,.EOB 0 10' BLS.................... ..... .:.. .EO9 SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: ■ TOPSOIL TB-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586) ED FINE SAND (SP) AB-/ EN-/ N AUGER BORING (ASTM DI452) SFWMO SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXRLTuTION) TEST SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT FINE SAND 4SP)] W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS V EE HARDPAN-T P SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) P BLS" SP, SP-SC, GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED END OF BORING BELOW LAND SURFACE ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS] ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. BNSWSWAn Av m.Pod SLL-de,FLA9M M-607b191 v-W. CFN:ecom CeNCwta &AuNatlaaHao No. 267G TAN/LT. BROWN SAND (SP) 5 REDDISH -BROWN FIRE SAND (SP) . ....:. ... .............. 25 OKAY Ell NE SAXD (SP) 30 SOIL BORING PROFILES TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Checked by: ORA 1 Dale: May2018 MRO HANGAR PROJECT Sheet No.2 ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLOWDA "CEM.No:1B-151 Or ©i 25 F TB-6 TB-7 TB-8 , DATE: 05/02/1B DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 _ DATE: SASS... N .:SASS.. ... SASS... .. SASS... .. SASS N ....:......................... ..IME ................................ N ¢ TOPSOIL ¢ TOPSOIL TOPSOIL r¢ GRAY FINE SAND (SP) DRAY ME SAND (SP) GRAY FINE SAND (SP) V < < < O ON. S AND (SP) FDILIN DROWN/REDDISH-BROWN < REDDISH GROWN WEANLY CEYENiEp ¢ DINE 34N0 (SP) DINE SAND (SP) S : S FINE SAND (SP), T/O SILT .......... SASSAHD ORGANICS [HARDPAN -TYPE] A`S t ,g:; BROWN PINE SYID ,(SP),,A,� .. ..a SASS SASS... ... SASS...LT. GRAY S1. CLAYEY SAND (SP-SC) Y ... _SASS. _.. .......... _, ......._............... TAN/LT. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ...: HEDO] SH BROWN FINE BAND (SP) FINE SAND (SP) BROWN/ON. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .................................: REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) TB-10- /1B DATE: 05/01/18 ............ ................. I — GROWN FINE SAND (SP) .............................................................................................................. REDDISH -BROWN RNE SAND (SP) 30 —........... _SASS _...__..................................... ...... .................:..... ........... ........... ..... .... .... ....... SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: ■ TOPSOIL 79-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTY D1588) FINE SAND SP ( ) FINE SAND (SQ N. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS HARDPAN- P TY E SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) AS-/ AUGER BORING (ASTM DIE52) EX-/ SFWND SOIL HYORAUUC CONDUCTIVITY (EXFILTRARON) TEST N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER POOT GROUNDWATER TABLE (iT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME GRILLED BL_S ENO OF BORING -BLs BELOW ux0 SURFACE SP, SP-SC. ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS] ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. OMMSWae ANenua.Ped SLLud.,FLDABBO 7724076191 wwwnACEmc.cam GNRute of AulLarizaBon Na 26TSA SOIL BORING PROFILES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Drawn by PGA D"N'May 201E CXeck.dbr DPA om: May2D1G RACE File No: 1&151 Sheet No.3 AB-1 AB-2 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 p... .. ._......: ._......... rYC iB _) i0PSU1L � � � � � � � � � � � ................_..:...... ..... 1 ...... .............. ._....... TOPSOIL . .._ GRAY NNE SAPID (SP). (-30a: R 1 PEN !: CRAP ONE SAND (SP), T/O ROOM La: � �; T/O ROOTS .. YC 22 i DN. BROWN NNE WIO (SP) IYC 21 K. : DK BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED FINE SAND (SP). T/O SILT AND ORGANICS [HARDPAN -TYPE] 5 ... ... .....: E00. A N 1 ......... .:.... ... ..: S ] '. BROWN NNE SAND 1SP) �: REDDISH -BROWN NNE SANG (SP) HOC [Y0: u 1 LT. GRAY SAL CUM FINE SAND (SP-SC) GREEN -GRAY SL CUM FINE SAPID (SP-SC) SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: ■ TOPSOIL ED FINE SAND (SP) F)INE SAND (SP)W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS HARDPAN— PE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) NOTES: TB-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM DISBB) AB-/ AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) EX-/ SFWMD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIWTY (EXFILTRATION) TEST N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRACE) AT TIME DRILLED ENO OF BORING BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE SP, SP-SC, ETC: UNIDO) SOIL CVSSIRCARON SYSTEM [USCS] EX-1 DAM 05/02/te GUY FINE SAID (SP) ' DK. BROWN WFAIG.Y CEMENTED FINE SAND (SP). T/O SILT AND ORGANICS [HARDPAN -TYPE] .......... ._.............. 5 . BROWN FINE'SM01 (SP)" " .. EOB OB' BLS . .........:. x,iO 1......:. ..... .: .,. .... ._....... 0 = 3.6x10 CFS d = 0.5 FT H2 = 4.5 FT Ds = 1.5 FT K 1.3x10 4 CFSJSQFT - FT HEAD We recommend using a Factor of Safety of 2 When a]Ing this value In the design of dralnoge improvements. EXFILTRATION TEST CONFIGURATION (Nd To Saal.) STAND EXFILTRATION TESTS K HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY D STABILIZED FLOW RATE d DIAMETER OF TEST HOLE H2 HYDROSTATIC COLUMN US SATURATED HOLE DEPTH (BY ONT) NOTE: IF 0. CWT NOT ENCOUNTERED _ 40 K ad(2 +4HAg+H2d) ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER NG EVALUAl ON ,,:.ecr:PGA Dale: Mey:01e SOIL BORING PROFILES AND TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT checmd OY.DPA Dale: My 201E BOKSWSw.n Avanae.Pad SlLade.FL]!96]?724M 191 maw.AACEincmm EXFILTRATION TEST RESULT MRO HANGAR PROJECT CaaeuM 0 Aauh rb.Yan Na 26M ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA AACE HID No: 1B451 'Sheet NO.4 APPENDIX I USDA Soil Survey Information 2A NOR 2A N2TN Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (TCIA ) 3 Map Scale: 1:2AW rpnntad W A land ape(11"xa.5� Beet; § N his 0 35 70 140 210,. A `� a Map pmjedion: Web Mercator CnmermadnabEs: WGSB4 EdgeBa: UrM 2nre 17N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey gg 2A NOR yM M 513I2018 Page 1 of 3 2ANNN [IT/TjI*]:1:U7 Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Q Soil Map Unit Polygons ^y Soil Map Unit Unes 0 Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features V Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot O Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill - IL Lava Flow ,tyl Marshorswamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water ® Perennial Water @g Rock Outcrop .+ Saline Spot a Sandy Spot - p Severely Eroded Spot ® Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sadic Spot Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (fCIA ) MAP INFORMATION Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. 4 Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil p Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of ��. Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Water Features -,� Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Transportation *µ Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: �y Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator a Major Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the cc� Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Background ® Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar 20, 2017 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. usoA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service - National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Pereent of AOI , 21 Lawnwood and Myakka sands 30.3 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 30.3 100.0% TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2013 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey _ Page 3 of 3. Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida St. Lucie County, Florida 21—Lawnwood and Myakka sands Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol., ljpvg Elevation: 20 to 200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period., 350 to 365 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Lawnwood and similar soils: 40 percent Myakka and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Lawnwood Setting Landform: Marine terraces on flatwoods Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material., Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 8 inches: sand E - 8 to 28 inches: sand Bhl - 28 to 52 inches sand Bh2 - 52 to 58 inches: sand C - 58 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 31 inches to ortstein Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0'.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding., None Frequencyofponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0 Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) Hydricsoil rating: No Description of Myakka Setting Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material. Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: sand E - 7 to 27 inches: sand Bh - 27 to 38 inches: sand C - 38 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0 Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ankona Percent of map unit. 7 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No . TCIA LSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida Electra Percent of map unit., 7 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, rises on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): InterHuve Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Waveland Percent of map unit. 6 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX II CBR Test Result wood. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULTS 115 113 a •N 111 c m 2 109 O 107 105 5 100.0 80.0 ar A 60.0 C 40.0 m U 20.0 0.0 Moisture vs. Density 7 9 11 Moisture Content (%) Moisture vs. CBR Value 13 15 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moisture Content (%) Material Description: Brown Fine SAND Test Results Optimum Moisture (%): `""11.0 — Maximum Dry Density(pcf):. 110.1 j Maximum CBR Value: 13.3. , i at .100" deflection InmsaoW Maximum CBR Value: 13A'J at.200"deflection PROJECT NAME: TCIA MRO Hangar Project PROJECT NO.: 6738-16.5485 CLIENT: AACE DATE TESTED: 5/5/2018 SAMPLE No.: CBR 01 TEST METHOD: ASTM J. LOCATION: St. Lucie County, FL PERFORMED BY: C.. yi(iI �p•^CV,•� l No.63829 6 STATE OF Florida ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS GENERAL Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) borings describe subsurface conditions only at the locations drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no information about subsurface conditions below the bottom of the boreholes. At locations not explored, surface conditions that differ from those observed in the borings may exist and should be anticipated. The information reported on our boring logs is based on our drillers' logs and on visual examination in our laboratory of disturbed soil samples recovered from the borings. The distinction shown on the logs between soil types is approximate only. The actual transition from one soil to another may be gradual and indistinct. The groundwater depth shown on our boring logs is the water level the driller observed in the borehole when it was drilled. These water levels may have been influenced by the drilling procedures, especially in borings made by rotary drilling with bentonitic drilling mud. An accurate determination of groundwater level requires long-term observation of suitable monitoring wells. Fluctuations in groundwater levels throughout the year should be anticipated. The absence of a groundwater level on certain logs indicates that no groundwater data is available. It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that boring location at some other point in time. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a widely accepted method of in situ testing of foundation soils (ASTM D-1586). A 2-foot (0.6m) long, 2-inch (50mm) O.D. split-barrell sampler attached to the end of a string of drilling rods is driven 24 inches (0.60m) into the ground by successive blows of a 140-pound (63.5 Kg) hammer freely dropping 30 inches (0.76m). The number of blows needed for each 6 inches (0.15m) increments penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for penetration of the middle two 6-inch (0.15m) increments of penetration constitutes the test result of N-value. After the test, the sampler is extracted from the ground and opened to allow visual description of the retained soil sample., The N-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties allowing a conservative estimate of the behavior of soils under load. The following tables relate N-values to a qualitative description of soil density and, for cohesive soils, an approximate unconfined compressive strength (Clu): CohesionlessSoils: N-Value Description 0 to 4 Very loose 4 to 10 Loose 10 to 30 Medium dense 30 to 50 Dense Above 50 Very dense Cohesive Soils: N-Value Description Cu 0 to 2 Very soft Below 0.25 tsf (25 kPa) 2 to 4 Soft. 0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa) 4 to 8 Medium stiff 0.50to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 kPa) ' 8 to 15 Stiff 1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa) 15 to 30 Very stiff 2.0 to 4.0 tsf (200 to 400 kPa) Above 30 Hard Above 4.0 tsf (400 kPa) The tests are usually performed at 5 foot (1.5m) intervals. However, more frequent or continuous testing is done by AACE through depths where a more accurate definition of the soils is required. The test holes are advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting bit, using circulating fluid to remove the cuttings and hold the fine grains in suspension. The circulating fluid, which is bentonitic drilling mud, is also used to keep the hole open below the water table by maintaining an excess hydrostatic pressure inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly highly pervious ones, flush -coupled casing must be driven to just above the testing depth to keep the hole open and/or prevent the loss of circulating fluid. After completion of a test borings, the hole is kept open until a steady state groundwater level is recorded. The hole is then sealed by backfilling, either with accumulated cuttings or lean cement. Representative split -spoon samples from each sampling interval and from different strata are, brought to our laboratory in air-tightjars for classification and testing, if necessary. Afterwards, the samples are discarded unless prior arrangement have been made. POWER AUGER BORINGS Auger borings (ASTM D-1452) are used when a relatively large, continuous sampling of soil strata close t6theground surface is desired. A4-inch (100 mm) diameter, continuous flight, helical auger, with a cutting head at its end is screwed into the ground in 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It is powered by the rotary dill rig. The sample is recovered by withdrawing the auger our of the ground without rotating it. The soil sample so obtained, is classified in the field and' representative samples placed in bags orjars and returned to the AACE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary. HAND AUGER BORINGS Hand auger borings are used, if soil conditions are favorable, when the soil strata are to be determined within a shallow (approximately 5-foot [1.5m]) depth or when access is not available to power drilling equipment. A 3-inch (75mm) diameter hand bucket auger with a cutting head is simultaneously turned and pressed into the 'ground. The I bucket auger is retrieved at approximately 6-inch (0.15m) interval and its contents emptied for inspection. On occasion post - hole diggers are used, especially in the upper 3 feet (1m) or so. Penetrometer probings can be used in the upper 5 feet (1.5m) to determine the relative density of the soils. The soil sample obtained is described and representative samples put in bags orjars and transported to the AACE soils laboratory"for classification and testing, if necessary. UNDISTURBED SAMPLING Undisturbed sampling (ASTM D-1587) implies the recovery of soil samples in a state as close to their natural condition as possible. Complete preservation of in situ conditions cannot be realized; however, with careful handling and proper sampling techniques, disturbance during sampling can be minimized for most geotechnical engineering purposes. Testing of undisturbed samples gives a more accurate estimate of in situ behavior than is possible with disturbed samples. Normally, we obtain undisturbed samples by pushing a 2.875-inch (73 mm) I.D., thin wall seamless steel tube 24 inches (0.6 m) into the soil with a single stoke of a hydraulic ram. The sampler, which is a Shelby tube, is 30 (0.8 m) inches long. ,Afterthe sampler is retrieved, the ends are sealed in the field and it is transported to our laboratory for visual description and testing, as needed. ROCK CORING In case rock strata is encountered and rock strength/continuity/composition information is needed for foundation or mining purposes, the rock can be cored (ASTM D-2113) and 2-inch to 4-inch diameter rock core samples be obtained for further laboratory analyses. The rock coring is performed through flush -joint steel casing temporarily installed through the overburden soils above the rock formation'and also installed into the rock.: The double- or triple -tube core barrels are advanced into the rock typically in 5-foot intervals and then retrieved to the surface. The barrel is then opened so that the core sample can be extruded. Preliminary field measurements of the recovered rock cores include percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values. The rock cores are placed in secure core boxes and then transported to our laboratory for further inspection and testing, as needed. SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS In order to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the upper soils, constant head or falling head exfiltration tests can be performed. These tests are performed' in.accordance with methods described in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Permit Information Manual, Volume IV. In brief, a 6 to 9 inch diameter hole is augered to depths of about 5 to 7 feet; the bottom one foot is filled with 57-stone; and a 6-foot long slotted PVC pipe is lowered into the hole. The distance from the groundwatertable alld to the ground surface is recordedand the hole is then saturated for 10 minutes with the water level maintained at the ground surface. If a constant head test.is performed, the rate of pumping will be recorded at fixed intervals of 1 minute for a total of 10 minutes, following the saturation period. LABORATORY TEST METHODS Soil samples returned to the AACE soils laboratory are visually observed by a geotechnical engineer or a trained technician to obtain more accurate description of the soil strata. Laboratory 1. testing is performed on selected samples as deemed necessary to aid in soil classification and to help define engineering properties of the soils. The test results are presented on the soil boring logs at the depths at which the respective sample was recovered, except that grain size distributions or selected other test results may be presented on separate tables, figures or plates as discussed in this report. THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES The soil descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual -manual procedures in accordance with local practice. Soil classification is performed in general accordance with the United Soil Classification System and is also based on visual -manual procedures. BOULDERS (>12" r300 MMII and COBBLES IT' r75 MMl TO 12" r300 MMl): GRAVEL: Coarse Gravel: 3/4" (19 mm) to 3" (75 mm) Fine Gravel: No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve to 3/4" (19 mm) Descriptive adiectives 0 - 5% — no mention of gravel in description 5 -15% — trace 15-29% —some 30 - 49% —gravelly (shell, limerock, cemented sands) SANDS: COARSE SAND: No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve to No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve MEDIUM SAND: No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve to No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve FINE SAND: No. 200 (75 µm) Sieve to No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve Descriotive adiectives 0-5% 5-15% 15-29% 30-49% SILT CLAY: <#200(75µM) Sieve SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4 SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 s PI s 7 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7 — no mention of sand in description — trace —some —sandy Descriptive adiectives: <- 5% —clean (no mention of silt or clay in description) 5 -15% — slightly 16 - 35% —clayey, silty, or silty clayey 36-49% —very ORGANIC SOILS: Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Classification 0 - 2.5% Usually no mention of organics in description 2.6-5% slightly organic 5 - 30% organic See Above add "with organic fines' to group name SM with organic fines Organic Silt (OL) Organic Clay (OL) Organic Silt (OH) THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES Organic Clay (OH) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS AND MATTER: Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Classification 30 - 75% sandy peat Peat (PT) silty peat - Peat (PT) > 75% amorphous peat Peat (PT) fibrous peat Peat (PT) Descriptive Term Thickness with interbedded seam -- less than Y2 inch (13 mm) thick layer -- 'Y2 to 12-inches (300 mm) thick stratum -- more than 12-inches (300 mm) thick pocket small, erratic deposit, usually less than 1-foot lens -- lenticular deposits occasional one or less per foot of thickness frequent -- more than one per foot of thickness calcareous -- containing calcium carbonate (reaction to diluted HCL) hardpan -- spodic horizon usually medium dense marl mixture of carbonate clays, silts, shells and sands ROCK CLASSIFICATION (FLORIDA) CHART: Symbol Typical Description LS Hard Bedded Limestone or Caprock WLS Fractured or Weathered Limestone LR Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture) SLS Stratified Limestone and Soils 0 THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS N: Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches R: Refusal (less than six inches advance of the split spoon after 50 hammer blows) MC: Moisture content (percent of dry weight) OC: Organic content (percent of dry weight) PL: Moisture content at the -plastic limit LL: Moisture content at the liquid limit PI: Plasticity index (LL-PL) qu: Unconfined compressive strength (tons per square foot, unless otherwise noted) -200: Percent passing a No. 200 sieve (200 wash) +40: Percent retained above a No. 40 sieve US: Undisturbed sample obtained with,a thin -wall Shelby tube k: Permeability (feet per minute, unless otherwise noted) DD: Dry density (pounds per cubic foot) TW: Total unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) APPENDIX III AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. (revised January 24, 2007) Project Limitations and Conditions Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is. made herein. Further, the report, in all cases, is subject to the following limitations and conditions: VARIABLE/UNANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The engineering analysis, evaluation and subsequent recommendations presented herein are based on the data obtained from our field explorations, at the specific locations explored on the dates indicated in the report. This reportdoes not reflect any subsurface variations (e.g. soil types, groundwater levels, etc.) which may occur adjacent or between borings. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction/excavation commences. In the event such variations are encountered, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. may find it necessary to (1) perform additional subsurface explorations, (2) conduct in -the -field observations of encountered variations, and/or re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. We at Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. recommend that the project specifications necessitate the contractor immediately notifying Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc., the owner and the design engineer (if applicable) if subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those presented in this report. No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those expected in the plans and specifications, or presented in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. of such differing site conditions. Additionally, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by an Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. representative. SOIL STRATA CHANGES Soil strata changes are indicated by a horizontal line on the soil boring profiles (boring logs) presented within this report. However, the actual strata's changes may be more gradual and indistinct. Where changes occur between soil samples; the locations of the changes must be estimated using the available information and may not be at the exact depth indicated. SINKHOLE POTENTIAL Unless specifically requested in writing, a subsurface exploration performed by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential. MISINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION REPORT Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is responsible forthe conclusions and recommendations presented herein, based upon the subsurface data obtained during this project. If others render conclusions or opinions, or make recommendations based upon the data presented in this report, those conclusions, opinions and/or recommendations are notthe responsibility of Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared to assist the owner, architect and/or civil engineer in the design of the subject project. If any changes in the construction, design and/or location of the structures as discussed in this report are planned; or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not be valid. All such changes in the project plans should be made known to Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. for our subsequent re-evaluation. USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS Bidders who are reviewing this report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared to assist the owners and project designers. Bidders should coordinate their own subsurface explorations (e.g.; soil borings, test pits, etc:) for the purpose of determining any conditions that may affect construction operations. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be held responsible for any interpretations made using this report or.the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which may affect construction operations. IN -THE -FIELD OBSERVATIONS Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. attempts to identify subsurface conditions, including soil stratigraphy, water levels, zones of lost circulation, "hard" or "soft" drilling, subsurface obstructions, etc. However, lack of mention in the report does not preclude the presence of such conditions. LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS Users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. to attempt to locate any man-made, underground objects during the course of this exploration, and that no attempts to locate any such objects were performed. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction. PASSAGE OF TIME This report reflects subsurface conditions that were encountered atthe time/date indicated in the report.Significant changes can occur atthe site during the passage of time. The user of the report recognizes the inherent risk in using the information presented herein after a reasonable amount of time has passed. We recommend the user of the report contact Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. with any questions or concerns regarding this issue. Geolechnicol Engineeping Report Geotechnical Services Are Performed lop 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 civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —not evenyou —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Repots Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on. A Unique Set of Project-Specihc. Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking, lots„and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made: Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • projectownership.• As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones ---and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liabilityforproblems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field anddaboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Aire Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual i. subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretatidh of geotechnical engineering repcds has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have su//ictenttime to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes, To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g.,"about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project lallures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for some- one else. Obtain Ppolessional Assistance To Deal with Maid Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention'consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed In connection with the geolechnical engineers study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itsel/be sufficient to prevent mold from growing In or on the structure Involved. Rely, an Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer lop Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide army of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFETHE GEO AL, BUSINESSRASSEOCIASSIOTION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: into@asfe.org wwwasfe.org Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is stricty prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting; quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as complement to or as an element of a geofechnlcal engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be comalhing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER03135.OMRP