The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONNCO UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Dollar General Store 7180 South US Highway #1 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1801)0154.0000 December 24, 2018 PREPARED FOR: Hix Snedeker Companies 805 Trione Avenue Daphne, Alabama 36526 PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. 820 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 6.38-0806 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction.Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Offices in: Atlando - Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville_• Jacksonville • Ocala r Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota Miami •. Panama City • Pensacola •Fort Pierce • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA • Tifton, GA U,I�L-� V E RSA L ENGINEERING ,SCIENCES, .Consuhanis in: Geotechnlcal-Engineering • Envininmental.Sciences. Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing Threshold Inspection Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration December 24, 2018 Hix Snedeker Companies 805 Trione Avenue Daphne, Alabama 36526 Attention: Mr. Scott Rheames Reference: Subsurface Exploration Dollar General Store 7180 South US Highway #1 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.18000154.0060 Dear Mr. Rheames: LOCAnoNs: •. Atlanta _ • Daytona Beach • Fort Myem • Fort Pierce Galimville • Jacitscriwe • -M aml Ocala • Odaindo (Headquartem) • Palm Coast • -Panama City -� Pensacola °•. Roddedge samsota Tampa West Palm Beach . • 'AtlaMe, GA •. Tilton, GA Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc: (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration at the above referenced site in Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorlied by you and was conducted as outlined in Universal's proposal No. 0330.0918.00001. 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 general engineering recommendations concerning site 'preparation procedures, foundation and pavement design parameters, and our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations. 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 Fawcett, M.S. P.E. ik. :� STAIEOF Regional. Engineer °aa Florida Professional Ending 1•; 1 — Client (by e-mail). UESDOCS - #1635473 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321.) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www. UniversalEhgineering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......... .................................. .................................. ,..,......... ..................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................1 3.0 PURPOSE......................................................................................:..::......::....::.::::...:.......::.:...........A 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................:::.:::::.:::.:..:::1 4.1 SOIL SURVEY .......... :................................................... ....................................................,....,..........2 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY.... .......................................... . .................................................................. . . ..... .;... ... 2 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................:::::::.:c 6.0 LIMITATIONS........................................ .::3 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES..........................................................................•,....,,..,......a,•,••.....a......•3 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS...........:.....................................:.:.::..:::..:r:.a::.:.:.-.:::::z.::.:::.3 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES ............................. ........... ............................................................... 4 8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ...................... ............... :::..::........................ ....................... 4 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................4 9.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE .............................. 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................................................................................5 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........................ ........,,................. ,......... .....•..•v.•..•...,,,.5 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL , _ , 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS .................................... _ . •.. ......• .., .. r ... =...6 12.0 PROPOSED SCHOOL BUILDING ...... :::::::::::,:::::::::::..:::::::::::.:.:.::::...:...:.:::::.:::.:..::...:........ ...... :..:::6 12.1 12.2 ANALYSIS ........................................••. RECOMMENDATIONS.......... ....................... --.,...,. ..:.....,. . .....,.,........:.....,,. _. ,,.>.. .�..........6 ....... ....., .....::.. ......... ,....::.7 12.3 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES,..._.._.,:•,;... ..... ............ -.,.::...,7 13.0 PROPOSED PAVEMENTS:::::..:.:::::::::.::::a:.:::.:.-.:::.:.:::.-:.::.:.............:::.:.::.:..::::.:::.s:::::.:.e:::::. .:.8 13.1 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES .......... :...,..:.::::::::..:.:::>:..::::::::..::.:....................9 13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. ::.::::..::::.::::::::.::..:.:::.:.-.::.::.::::::.:.:..:_:.::::::..:.::::..................... 9 13.2.1 Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements.::.::..:::.:::::.:.:::.::::.::::::::.::::::::...::.....::...::::::::.:::::..................9 13.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements....:::::::.:::.:.:.::::::::::::.::.::;:.:-::..;:::::::::.::.:::::::.:..,::.:::...............11 14.0 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES:.:.:.:.:....:.::.::...:..::::........::...:........:.............:...................................12 14.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ........... :::.:::.r.::........ :..::::::::.::.::::.::............................. ................. 12 14.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES n::::.::...... :.::.-::::::.::a.::::-.,::.::::....::...............................................12 15.0 DEWATERING...............................................................................................................................13 16.0 EXCAVATIONS...............................................................................................................................13 17.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................14 18.0 CLOSURE ....... :.::...... :.... :::... ::.:..::.... :...... :::....... :.... ::::::.:.:::::..:.:::::..::::.:... ..... :..::: .... ....... i..::.... .:...:14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types...... :. ... 2 Table II: : Generalized Soil Profile ................................................. 5 Table III: T.: ....... ....... w--., ....... ...... Standard Duty Asphalt/Limerock Pavement 10 Table IV: ................. Heavy Duty Asphalt/Limerock Pavement ..................... ;.00 ...... 10 Table V: Standard Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement ......... Table VI: Heavy Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement......... im 112 FIGURES Saint Lucie County Soil Survey.-..; ........... ...... ,-..,,Figure No. 1 USGS Topographic Map......... ........... .............. .Figure No. 2 Boring Location Plan .................. . ..... No. 3 APPENDICES Key to Boring Logs ....... ...,.Appendix A Boring Logs ........ .. . .......................... ..... ......... Appendix A EXHIBITS GBA Document ... ......... Exhibit I Dollar General Store Comp; Universe; iojectNo. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1 rt Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 1.0 INTRODUCTION Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed Dollar General Store at 7180 South US Highway #1 in Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by you and was conducted as outlined in Universal's proposal No. 0330.0918.00001. 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 a review of the site plan provided by the client that the proposed project will consist of a Dollar General store complex in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The proposed facility will consist of a one (1) story building covering a plan area of approximately 9,100 square feet; with associated paved parking and drive areas. The stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be retained within existing stormwater retention facilities at the site. We assume 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, 4 kips per lineal foot for structural walls, and 100 pounds per square foot for on grade floor slabs. We assume that the finished first 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. 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. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 'The subject site is located within Section 22, Township 36 South, Range 40'East in Saint Lucie County, Florida. More specifically, the site is located on the east side of US Highway #1, approximately 1,000 feet south of Lake Vista Trail, in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. At the time of drilling, the majority of the site surface was relatively level, with a vegetative cover consisting mostly of grass. The remnants of a concrete floor slab and adjacent asphaltic parking lot from a previously existing commercial complex were visible across much of the site area. 1 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEnd[neerihg.com Dollar General Store Camp'- ., Univers eject No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #', art Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 4.1 SOIL SURVEY Two (2) soil types (pre -developmental) are mapped on the project site according to the Saint Lucie County Soil Survey (SLCSS), dated 1980. A brief description of these soil types are provided in the following Table I. The approximate delineation of these soil types are shown on the attached Figure No. 1, which is a portion of the SLCSS soil map. TABLE SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES Soil Type __(Map - Symbol) Brief Description. Waveland Complex (50) Nearly level, poorly drained sandy soil on broad flatwoods areas. Waveland-Lawnwood complex (51) Nearly level, poorly drained depressional soils in the flatwoods. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Ankona, Florida quadrangle map, dated 1949, photo -revised 1983; average ground surface elevation (pre -developmental) within the site area is approximately +15 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). A copy of a portion of the USGS Map is included as Figure No. 2. 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The services conducted by Universal during our subsurface exploration program are as follows: Drill five (5) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed building footprint to depths of 20 to 25 feet below the existing land surface (bls). Drill four (4) SPT borings within the proposed parking and drive areas to a depth of 10 feet bls. • 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. 2 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www. UniversalEngineering. cam Dollar General Store Compl, Univers° `, ject No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1„ , t Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in order to aid the clientiengineer in the design of the proposed Dollar General Store Complex 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 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 TEST BORINGS The nine (9) SPT borings, designated B1 through 89 on the attached Figure No. 3, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for 3 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.Universa[Engineering.com Dollar General Store Compi Universe' *)jact No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1. __ in Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split -barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. The soil samples recovered from the split -barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]). The SPT soil borings were performed using a CME 45 ATV mounted drilling rig using either rotary mud techniques or continuous flight augers to termination depth. The boring locations were determined in the field using a hand held GPS receiver. No survey control was provided on -site, and our boring locations should be considered only as accurate as implied by the methods of measurement used. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Figure No. 3. 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES 8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on three (3) 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 is shown on the attached boring logs. - 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 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 in the following Table II. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. 4 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Dollar General Store Compl; Universa, )ject No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1 _ ;1 Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration TABLE II GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE Depth Approximate" Encountered Thickness, Soil Description (feet, bls) (, _(feet) Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; loose to medium dense. At boring locations B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B8 & 89; these Surface 0.5 to 6 surficial soils are overlain by concrete or asphaltic pavements and/or fill soils with varying amounts of broken shell, gravel & silt. At boring locations B2, B3, B7, and 139; this surficial stratum is absent. 0.5 to 3 1 to 4 Fine sands [SP]; loose to medium dense. Stratum is absent at boring locations B4, B5 & B8, Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; loose to medium dense. At some 2 to 6 3 to 12 locations & depths this stratum is partially cemented with iron oxide & organic salts and is locally known as hardpan. 6 to 12 2+ to 11+ Clayey fine sands [SC], sometimes interlayered by sandy clay seems; loose/soft. NOTE: [] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation. + indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined. 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We measured the water levels in the SPT boreholes on December 12, 2018, after the groundwater was allowed to stabilize. The groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring logs. The groundwater level depths ranged from 1.7 feet bls at boring location B5 to 3.2 feet bls at boring location B6. 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.) J 5 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.Universa]Engineering.com Dollar General Store Compl: - Universe;' yect No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1, t Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 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 December 12, 2018. According to data from the Southeast Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in the previous month of November for Central Saint Lucie County was 2.8 inches, approximately 0.4 inches below the normal amount for the month of November. Year-to-date rainfall for 2018 through December 12'" was approximately 49 inches, roughly 5'/2 inches below the normal levels for this time period. Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations will be approximately 1'/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 variations in the silt and clay content of the near surface soils at this site, we strongly suspect that there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater within the project area, particularly after periods of prolonged wet weather. Such temporary perched water table levels may be significantly higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above. 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP] and clayey fine sands [SC]. The percentage of soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled. 12.0 PROPOSED SCHOOL BUILDING 12.1 ANALYSIS Based on the results of the SPT soil borings, the surficial soils at this site have received moderate compactive efforts, probably during the original mass grading & construction operations across the property. However, the removal of existing foundations, slabs, pavements, utilities, organic topsoils, roots, surface vegetation, and debris; along with other construction activities; will tend to further loosen the surficial soils to various depths. Therefore, densification of the loose surficial soils, and subsequent fill materials, will be necessary. This will help create a soil mat capable of dissipating the building loads over any remaining loose strata at depth. This can be effectively accomplished by compacting the soils with a large static roller or medium sized vibratory rollers, then 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 6 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Dollar General Store Compt. Universal' ' Ject No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway#1, _ ;t Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 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 up to 2,000 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 structure will be less than 1 inch and maximum differential settlements will be less than '/2 inch. Almost all of the expected settlement will take place as soon as the soil fill and 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 - grade to help control moisture migration through the slab. 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 project 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 Following is a list of our recommended site preparation procedures to prepare the site for the proposed construction. Strip the footprint of the proposed building plus a minimum margin of at least ten feet beyond foundation lines, of existing foundations, slabs, pavements, vegetation, roots, topsoils, debris, rubble, 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 niversal. Any deleterious matter remaining should be removed and sand rSP) backfill. 2. Densify the exposed surficial soils, including the ten feet margin, 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 a depth of at least 12 inches below the stripped surface. .Please -note -that,the_existing.near'su face 7 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.Universa[Engineering.com Dollar General Store Compk, - . Universe -,fact No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1, _ , 'd Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 3. If vibratory equipment is used to compact fill, 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 between 40 to 100 feet, and up to 10 tons beyond 100 feet. The use, of heavier ;equipment, may damage existing_ neighboring strucfures. 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 [SP]. 5. Depending upon 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 equipment. 6. Within all of the building area, fill to floor slab grades as necessary with select structural fill, placed in maximum 12 inch loose lifts; we recommend using sandy soils 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). B. 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 soils, after placement of each lift of 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 PROPOSED 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 8 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Dollar Genera/ Store Comply- 7180 South US Highway #1, Universa -,,fact No. 0330.1800154.0000 Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurtace Exploration 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 the surficial sands 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 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. Soil density testing to verify the uniformity of compactive efforts should be performed at a frequency of at least 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, organic topsoils, existing foundations, pavements, floor slabs, 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'(FIeXlble) PaVeri ants; 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 9 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Dollar General Store Comple.-- Universal ,'- !ect No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1, Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 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 III, for a standard duty asphalt pavement. TABLE III MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTILIMEROCK PAVEMENT .Pavement Layer Thickness. Minimum Requirements Asphalt Wearing Surface Wearing 95%0 laboratory Marshall -Density, Mix -to be OT S-1) (SPrface FDOT Type 1.5 Inch Minimum approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it (ype or should be compacted to at least 90 /a of the maximum theoretical density.-- Li Li merock, Cemented Coquina, 6Inch Minimum _ 98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry 'density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at Recycled Concrete Base 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 IV for minimum heavy duty pavement areas. TABLE IV MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY ASPHALTILIMEROCK PAVEMENT Pavement Layer Thickness Minimum Requirements Wearing Asphalt Wearing Surface 95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be FDOT Type S-1) (SP-1Surface) OTS-11 2 Inch Minimum approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it (ype or should be compacted to at least 90% of the u _ _-_ _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 1.8_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 three test 10 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www, Un iversalEng ineering.com Dollar General Store Compel; Universal' gect No. 0330.1800154.0000 7160 South US Highway #1,' 't Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 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 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, Sbecifications', 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 recommend 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 V for standard duty (loadings of up to 50,000 E,BSALs) concrete pavements. TABLE V MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT Minimum Pavement Maximum Control Minimum Saw Cut Depth Thickness Joint Spacing 6 Inches 12 Feet x 12 Feet 1 1-1/4 Inches 11 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-097B www.UniversalEngineering.com Dollar General Store Compl Universai:- -eject No. 033a 1800154.0000 7160 South US Highway #1, t Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration Our recommendations on slab thickness for heavy duty concrete pavements (loadings of up to 150,000 E1eSALs) are based on the same factors as above. Our recommended minimum design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in the following Table VI. TABLE VI MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT Minimum Saw Cut Depth 7 Inches [ 14 Feet x 14 Feet 1 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 five 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 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES 14.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS We assume that proposed sewer and other utility lines at the site may have invert elevations roughly 2 to 5 feet below existing grades. Based on the results of the soil borings and our general knowledge of the area, we believe there may be occasional softtdeleterious layers, or ;rUbblelladeripockef ,, at this invert level. If encountered, such deleterious/rock layers should be over excavated and replaced with approved backfill or open graded gravel. 14.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES The following is our recommended procedures to prepare the site soils for construction of the proposed utility lines. 1. If necessary, 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 or rubble laden soils encountered at pipe bedding level should be examined by representatives of Universal for 12 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www. Un iversalEngineering.com Dollar General Store Complsr Universaf ibct No. 0330.1800154.0000 7180 South US Highway #1, _ _ Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 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 131557) 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. 15.0 DEWATERING Based on the water level conditions encountered, control of the groundwater may 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 to 3 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. 16.0 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. 13 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Dollar General Store Compic - - Universaf rect No. 0330.1800154.0000 7160 South US Highway #1, 'Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 17.0 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. 18.0 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 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 & pavement subgrades by monitoring proof -rolling operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of compacted structural fill and pavement courses. 14 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-097B www.Universa]Engineering.com FIGURES 41 Source: USGS ANKONA FLA 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle (1948) Photo -Revised 1983 0 Approximate Project Location DOLLAR GENERAL STORE 7180 SOUTH US HIGHWAY 1 PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA USGS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY UNIVERSAL FAWN er° WA IOgTe Dewmber21.2018 ICl1EcdEDe@ BF G"Te oeaember21.2018 ENGINEERING SCIENCES NOIEGT NO. TNO: AGEM �www+�sa.e��aew�ss�sw s a,�oa o�ua .�m�c'anw T � I � .tea I 1 a F�� APPfi0x. 1.39 A[i AO" 90% pp99 1 Q D N2?I23DD0r0000. L 1'R. �i�l Il dd b „lu, Qi I • - - - 7 - -' -- - - -• .e agar vws� wacw nscr _ll • APtwax r4tiara Po nJ 342212300020007 MOA Approximate SPT Boring Locations •Flgu kbn upon ah lna Pro wtry. th c"em n �$a K�0< o3d y�o 2 oc� WNU Kph �co cog Om0 3m= onn. T myz m o g�a 0 8 0 a 0 W a U J Q � Z K m U al m UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES AS= 3 APPENDIX A u UNIVERSi ENGINEERING SCIENG,, ; PROJECT NO.: 03J0.1800160.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.-.R V V APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 7180 South U.S. Highway 1 Part St Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G:S. ELEVATION (a): DATE STARTED: 12112118 WATER TABLE (it): 2.8 DATE FINISHED: 12113110 DATE OF READING: 12112/18 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W:S.WSc(n): TYPE OF SAMPLING: BLOWS K ORQ f. WS PER6' V DESCRIPTION -200 MC (IN✓ CONT. c yS INCREMENT i o (x) - - -- -- — - -- CONCRETE pavement _- _ - --- — - fine SAND with silt, dark brown, [SP-SM] 20-19-14 19•1 4-8-13 8 fine SAND, grey, [SP] - . 3-6-7 e• f : 'r' t r :.:,r� ......... - - - -- - - fine SAND with slit, gray, [SP-SM] - 1-1-2 3 4-S-8 12 10 - ...._................... '.......... i, - Clayey fine SAND, grey, ISC] -- _ - - — —. I 1-1-220 . .. ........................ _..... ... .. i - sandy CLAY, with broken shell, grey, ICH] 25 , '.....?:3 �.... ... 5... ..... 'i , .. _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ .... ....:. BORING TERMINATED AT 25' � ` I DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. LRP UNIVERS, ENGINEERING SCJENC PROJECT"°: °"0t80°'�'°°°° I BORING LOG REPORT NO.: I' I.APPENDX A I PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 1180 South U.S. Highway 1 Port SL Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 1 Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G:S: ELEVATION III DATE STARTED: 12112/18 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.0 DATE FINISHED: 12/13/18 DATE OF READING: 12112/18 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S:W.T: (It): TYPE OF SAMPUNGI BLOWS PER ar j a p m J u DESCRIPTION "Z0 MC K (INJ ORG. CONT. y WCREMENT i ' ; o (%) (°h) Hn.) I%) 0'-Asphalticpa4ement8 base course fine SAND,.grey, [SP] f 1-14-19 14' '•`�rl 5-15-20 15* 2a21 9. fine SAND with silt„dark l rown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] _ I III .r.. ...... '....[ n 7 I fine SAND with slit;.grayi 1SP-SM] ' I' 6-8-8 is I, I ' I clayey fine SAND: greY:,ISC]_— xI I I , I sandy CLAY,, grey, [CH] -- — - - - - - I 20 .....1:?.........a.. '..._ '......:I' --........ .... BORING TERMINATED AT 20'. .::........ ! _ I • DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. I 25 I 1 I ............. •. i -...:.. I I -..... ...... ......... c G i u u UNIVERS_ ENGINEERING SCIENC ' ; PROJECT"°.: 0330A8001S4.0000 BORING LOG REPORT No.: i APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 7160 South U.S. Highway 1 Port St Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B.3 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 12JI2118 WATER TABLE (R): 1.9 DATE FINISHED: 12113118 DATE OF READING: 12112118 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S,W:T: (f): TYPE OF SAMPLING: - BLOWS J 4a K -- ORO. V g PER B' ¢ zz ; {1i 0 gI DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC I%I 6NJ CONT. r w INCREMENT 0 XR•1. (%) - 0 ,__ _____, __ ___ __- -- _ _ __ — 1Asphaltic pavement & base course - - - — - F 10-R R' �. z;:5;,. I fine SAND_withall ,.trace of gravel, [fill]; dark brown;;trace of ,' 9raveli'.[fifq.[SPSMj'- - -- - — - .'fine SAND',greI [SPI I 4-20-22 20 Ili f _ . • fine SAND with silt, dark brown; (hardpan) ISP-SM] 3-16-25 26'� 2-34 7 fine SAND with silt;,gray,.[SP-SM] S-6-9 15 Ott { I I tot; .........; ... ....: ................... _.._..,_..... clayey fine SAND, grey. [SC] 15 I 4 . - ......... I� L. ........... .....:.. ........_ ....._.... I, r � I I sandy -CLAY; grey ,ICH] -- _ - - 20 ....3c?:7,...... I :[ ,...: :....... - - - - _ — ;:.................... :. • ..... ..... •._ BORING TERMINATED'AT 20' _ ' DENOTESDYNAMIC;CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. fit-- DENOTES REFUSAL -TO PENETRATION WITH THE CONE -i I POINT. 25 i...... :....... ... :::....... ..... :.:....... ._ I Lp U'NIVERE .:ENGINEERING SCIEW PROJECT -NO.:_ 0330.1800164.0000 - - REPORT NO.: I BORING LOG 'i APPENDIX A � PROJECT. Proposed Dollar General Store �TiS0Bauth.Uis. Hrgl(wayA1 Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: c 'c u BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 12HZ118 WATER TABLE (it): 2.8 DATE FINISHED: 12114118 DATE OF READING: 12112/18 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T, (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:: .l o .� Mc K GRG.BLOW f ri PER as Q ~ ; w O I DESCRIPTION -x4p (IN4 CONT.;' INCREMENT Z b 3 1%) (%) HR.I I%) I I - - -Hne SAND -with silo Trae-e of roots; 6rdwn; [SP-SM]- — - fine SAND with silt- dark brown,.,(hardpan) ISP-SM]- 2-4.5 4' I 3-24 2''f:. •'. > -fine SAND with silt,.graX, [SP-SM] - -- 17 '` Q !I B-7-8 r I 1 -- 5-8-5 16 I ' clayey fine SAND, grey;,[SC] 10 it •:. ;.. 5-76,. ,. .. 15...... ... ....... ... I I I - I I � i [ I I i I - _ i I - sandy CLAYI,grey,[CHI I BORING TERMINATED AT 20' DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE: - I 25 II - . .. I -. - I; ...... i, ...........:...... ............., ..,....... .......... .......... x c a u u UNIVERS; ENGINEERING SCIENC -i PROJECT°"°•7800164°°°° BORING LOG REPORT NO.; APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 7180 South U.S. Highway 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BS SHEET: 'I Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 12/12118 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.7 DATE FINISHED: 17 I4118 DATE OF READING: 12/12118 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T: (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: _ J BLOWS p K ORM PER s" 3 I E y3�� DESCRIPTION zoo Mc (INJ CONT,, C' y INCREMENT i (*A) (bl HR.) (°4) Asphaltic pavement & base course - — --- — -- - } , line SAND with silt, brown, [SPSMI 9-23-25 23• fir: � 2.12-16 12' •' ' I : 3-11-19 11• A l - �I rs I I 2S9 14 Tine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM] 8-1 D-11 21 10 .. s 12 11 ..:-. ... 23 r 1.. ..... I i I clayey tine SAND, -gray. ISC]- — ---- - - - -' __---- - I _ ?..,. 112... I 3 , I ._ 15 .. i ... i BORING TERMINATED AT20' r. ! I I it ' DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. ' , P5............... I I 1 ....... ... .:....... I h . ........... I UNIVERS ENGINEERING SCIENC ;I PROJECT NO; 0330.1800164.0000 _\, BORING LOG REPORT - APPENDIX:O A I PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store BORING DESIGNATION: B6 SHEET: I Of 1 7180 South U.S. Highway 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST Port SL Lucia, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (fl): DATE STARTED: 121121118 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (it): 32 DATE FINISHED: 12114/18 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 12112118 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T.(h): TYPE OF SAMPLING: a BLOWS Om Q CS _ _ _ - DESCRIPTION .200 _-MC -- - _K OR% �' �i CONT. O ay INCREMENT y a l%) (%1 NRHR.) "-1 --.-CONCRETE.payement,_ Nne SANDwith slit; 9reY. [SP=SA--" -- --" - — -- --'- 3 5-6 5• 3-6-5 6•}+ Z .,1: � -fine SAND, grey, [SP] 4-8-14 B. 2.0 21.8 fine SAND with slit, Clark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] -' ' ' fine SAND with silt, gray; [SPSM] - - - - 3-3-4 7 4-5-6 11 clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. I I I 7 - III I - 20 I I I I I 25 ............... i ...... ..... ::..... ....... ... II z c a u LP UNIVERSE ENGINEERING SCIENC. ;; PROJECT NO 0330.1800164.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO APPENDIX A PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 7180 South U.S. Highway 1 Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: ' LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B7 SHEET: I Of 'I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 12/12118 WATER TABLE (it): 2.7 DATE FINISHED: 12114118 DATE OF READING: 12112/18 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST,W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x r BLOWS jI' PER G" ! 3 3 DESCRIPTION -iti°� IXI XIRI CONT. o INCREMENT G ) (y) 0 .,Asphaltic - -..- p_ayemeg£8 base course - - -' I fine SAND -,grey, ISPI - - - _-- -- 9-11-10 it* 7�i4�it 2.1 16.0 8-17-24 17• "'_ + fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] `. }' 5 - .-. _.- ...... ...., �! �•� fine SAND With silt, grary,SP-SM 45-6 11 i ey i i 10 j BORING TERMINATED AT 10' _' I' I. • DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. _�I lid I I I I f I I, ' I II i ' � 20 i I . i I. 25 i i ....... ... .. . I ...... ..... _ C E u L .PROJECT NO:: 0330.1800164.0000 UNIVERS , ENGINE.ERING SCIENC, REPORT NO -- BORING LOG _ i APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 7180 South U.S. Highway 1 Pon St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION:. SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BS SHEET: 1 Of 'I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 12/12/18 WATER TABLE (ft): 2"7 DATE FINISHED: 12/14/18 DATE OF READING: 12112/18 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T.,(it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: f a PERWN ye F 3 "�%� K ORG. w 3 5 DESCRIPTION Ix1 (wi. I coar,. o r� INCREMENT HR.) (%) —"D- - - - - — - - %CONCRETEipavemenf-- — -- ---` - — -- dine IANDYM 61144broken shall'and,gradel fill; brown [SP=SM]-.�- slit' ra SPSM i.. Y.'I I` 10-R R•(tine;SANOwith 2-20-R 20• � I i - 8-14-17 14• :. 1 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] clayey fine SAND, grey-. [SC]- — - - 3-3-4 I 7 I 3-5-7 12 10 ................. .. .... - .....".... ...... - .......... BORING TERMINATEO'AT 10" _, • DENOTES: DYNAMIC,CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. - R=DENOTES REFUSALTO PENETRATION WITH THE CONE I " i POINT i 15 I 20 .:............. ............."-....."......... f I 25 I ............... ..... .. ..... ...... ......... ... I i 11 i I i I Lp UNIVERS., ENGINEERING SCIENC, `> LAPPENDIX: T NO.: 0330.1800164.0000 BORING LOG NO.: BORING l7 A PROJECT: Proposed Dollar General Store 7180 South U.S. Highway 1 Port SL Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION;. SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B9 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST G.S. ELEVATION(h)1, DATE STARTED: 1211V18 WATER TABLE (h): 2.6 DATE FINISHED: 1 V14118 DATE OF READING: 12112118 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST, W;S.W.T:.(It): TYPE OF SAMPLING: W J i J _%, K ORG, 1 W PER 85 ¢ �" '� V, DESCRIPTION (%) (NJ CONT., v1 04CREMENT Z N g 3 HR.) (%) I 0 .:CONCRETE pavement, fine SAND with slit, broken shell and gravel fill, brown, jSMM]_ -. &2z-16 zz• 1 = "fine SAND, grey, [SP] I 2-6-7 8' taZ. j 'I 1-2-2 2• :�:��: I I .Y:gti5� 5 •" :. _ U, fine SAND with silt,; gray, [SP=SM]"- - - •. .. 10-10-11 21 6-8-e 17 clayey fine SAND; grey, [SC] I BORING TERMINATED AT 10 i I I I • DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE, I - '. 15 I I - - ....., I I ..... I ....... I ... ... '......... :..:....... ..... :...... I I .:.=.:.. i 20 I I I I i 25 ...............:....... ..... ...... . -...:;. _ .. r i r KEY TO HORI_NG LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART" 0......... 5a"..W, a"a„sP'SWG°GUNIVERSAL S Sand ,. ... Sand or Gravel with Slit or Clay [SPSM SP3C] 12 - � - -•.- ••=��•�-•• �� - - ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. ��NLl Silryry or Cla�yyeoyy Sand Gj or Gravel,[sM,SC,GM,GC] N 80 O N 60 ' zSp I ........... ..... .::............. ....... :...:, ......... aD N Sandy or Gravelly S[ILaYCIa [ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL;gH 00 to F 20 Silt orrClay withSand.orG�ravel to [ML,CL-ML•CL,MH,CH,OL OHJ' D I . SIR or CIE 100 ..:::.:.......... ::...... :.a..a...:�:... a..::.. a 10 20 30 Q SO 80 70 Eo So too LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY CHART GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS WELL -GRADED SANDS ISWI �hSJCk'• POORLY -GRADED SANDS ISP] POORLYGRAOED ME. SANDS WITH SILT [SPSMJ a , POORLY -GRADED SANDS WIDI CLAY I id�<r [SPSC] SILTY SANDS ffal [SNI CLAYEYSANDS ISCI , SILTY SANDS ISC-SMICLAYEY .'� WELL -GRADED GRAVELSIGVI] 0 �0. POORLY -GRADED o D' GRAVELS [GPI I" POORLYGRADED GRAVELS.T`NSILT p: [GP -GM] I POORLY -GRADED ° GRAVELS WITH CLAY p' [GPGCI IB 111 INORGANIC SILTS SLIGHT PLASTICITY [ML] INORGANIC SILTY CLAY LOW PLASTICITY [CL-MLI ®INORGANICCLAYS LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY[CLI SILTS HIGH �INORGANIC . PLASTICITY [MH) INORGANIC CLAYS XIOX ®. PLASTICITY [CHI HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ORGANIC SILTS(CLAYS LOWPUUFnCITYIOLr- . I ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS I MEDIUM TO HIGH I PLASTICITY]OHr- PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS I v i WITH HIGH ORGANIC I, CONTENTS [PT]. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2e87- UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. " LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. NOTES: 11- - DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER NIE - DENOTES GROUNOWATERTABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED RELATIVE DENSITY (SAND AND GRAVEL) VERY LOOSE- 0 to a Blo.M LOOSE - S to 10 Blowaft MEDIUM DENSE- II to 00 Blowaft DENSE-01 W 80Blovmft VERY DENSE -more than 50 91mm R. CONSISTENCY (SILT AND CLAY) VERY SOFT-0 to 2 BlowaOt SOFT-D to C Blowallt. FIRM - S W 0 BlomM. STIFF - S to 18 810w8M. VERY STIFF -17 to 00 BI0wa1R HARD - more than 00 BImmft NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.1 EXHIBIT I r - Geolechoical-Enoineeping 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 Geoprofesslonal Business Association exposes geotachnlcal 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 Ccotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil - works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical- engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read this Report In Full Costlyproblems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read it in its entirely. Do not rely an an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in fall. 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 structure's location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, puking lots, and underground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site's size or shape; • the function of the proposed structure, as when its. changed from puking 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 • pmject ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact. Thegeotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for 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. Ifyour 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 iL 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 when: 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 Confirrh ati on -Dependent The recommendations included in this report — including any options or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are nal 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 geotechnicai 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 responsibilityor babithy for confirmation - dependent recommendations ifyou failto retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design -team members, • 'help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebidand preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they canshift 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 factualdata 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. Conduding.prebid and pmixtr struction 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 "pbase-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 fora different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineers 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 ajthegeotechnical engineer's recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building - envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS G / - ASSOCIATION Telephone:301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessioual.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofesslonal Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whauoever. Is strictly prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise corseting warding from this document is permitted only with the exports written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members cfGBA may use this document orits wording as a complement to or as an element of report ofany kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this doeu ncet without being a GSA member ea old be committing negligent