B09_Amend0002_GEO_RPT_Construct_Fire_Station___BICY_HQ_Complex_s_s_0002.pdf

1215 Wallace Drive • Delray Beach, Florida 33444 • (561) 347-0070 • (561) 347-0809 (fax) • www.unviersalengineering.com

OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA

Universal Engineering Sciences Florida’s Leading Engineering Source

Geotechnical Exploration Report

CONSTRUCT FIRE STATION & BICY HQ COMPLEX

Ochopee, Florida

January 5, 2023 UES Project No.: 2130.2200078.0000

Prepared for: Walker Architects, Inc.

1215 Wallace Drive • Delray Beach, Florida 33444 • (561) 347-0070 • (561) 347-0809 (fax) • www.universalengineering.com

OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA

January 5, 2023

Gaurav Lohiya

WALKER ARCHITECTS, INC.

2035 NW 13th Street Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 672-6448

RE: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION FOR

CONSTRUCT FIRE STATION & BICY HQ COMPLEX

33100 TAMIAMI TRAIL E

OCHOPEE, FLORIDA 34141

UES PROJECT NO. 2130.2200078.0000

Dear Gaurav Lohiya, In accordance with your authorization, Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above referenced project in accordance with the signed geotechnical and engineering service agreement for this project. The scope of UES’s services was planned in conjunction with and authorized by you.

The purpose of UES’s subsurface exploration was to classify the nature of the subsurface soils and general geomorphic conditions and to evaluate their impact upon the proposed construction. This report contains the results and UES’s engineering interpretation of subsurface conditions of the site with respect to the project characteristics as described to UES including recommendations for foundation and pavement design, groundwater conditions, and site preparation procedures.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site is located at 33100 Tamiami Trail E in Ochopee, FL. The proposed development consists of the construction of a new Fire Operations Center for the Big Cypress National Preserve (BICY) at the above-mentioned location. It is UES understanding that the proposed construction consists of a hangar, pole barn, two buildings (EOC & FOC), paved roadways and parking lots, as well as an aviation overflow. A conceptual site plan prepared by Henry Adams Consulting Engineering, dated December 1, 2022, was provided by the client. The site currently consists of lightly vegetated land within BICY National Preserve HQ and its associated paved parking lot. Structural details were not provided by the client. For purpose of this report and analysis, UES has estimated foundation loading at 100 kips for any isolated column footings and 5 kips per linear foot for continuous footings.

Construct Fire Station & BICY HQ Complex Geotechnical Exploration Report Ochopee, FL January 5, 2023 UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by [Carlos A.

Mercado] on the date adjacent to the seal. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

UES anticipates that the proposed structure will be constructed using reinforced concrete, masonry, and structural steel construction. If conditions vary from those indicated above, UES should be requested to review the data to see if the recommendations contained herein are still valid.

The subsurface conditions encountered generally consisted of 2” to 4” of topsoil above very loose to very dense, fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of cemented sand fragments from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 2 to 4 feet below ground surface (BGS), underlain by very loose to dense, fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of silt, cemented sand, and shell fragments to a depth of approximately 4 to 6 feet BGS. The next layer consisted of cemented sand fragments with variable amounts of shell fragments and sand to the termination depth of the deepest borings at 25 feet BGS. The SPT N-values ranged between 2 to over 50 blows per foot (refusal).

Groundwater at the time of testing (December 2022) was found to approximate depths of 1.5’ to 2’ below ground surface.

Based on the anticipated loads of the electrical building, it is UES’s opinion that the soils at the site are generally suitable for shallow foundations to support the proposed structure once the site is prepared as discussed herein. A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of new footings. Site preparation recommendations can be found in this report for the support of the new force main.

UES appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and looks forward to a continued association with Walker Architects, Inc. Contact the undersigned if you have any questions or comments, or if UES may further assist you as your plans proceed.

Respectfully submitted, Universal Engineering Sciences Registry No. 4930

David Lopez, E.I.T.

Staff Engineer

Carlos A. Mercado, M.S., P.E.

Principal Geotechnical Engineer – South Florida Professional Engineer #71707 State of Florida

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.2 PURPOSE

1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 OBSERVATIONS

2.1 SITE OBSERVATION AND HISTORIC DATA

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING AND PROCEDURES

2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.4 DESIGN OF FOOTINGS

4.3 IN-SITU SOIL PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN

4.4 FLOOR SLABS

4.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE

5.0 ROADWAY AND PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL COMPONENTS

5.2 COMPACTED SUBGRADE OR EMBANKMENT FILL

5.3 STABILIZED SUBGRADE

5.4 BASE COURSE

5.5 SURFACE COURSE

5.6 CONCRETE PAVEMENT

5.7 EFFECTS OF WATER

5.8 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

5.9 PAVEMENT SITE PREPARATION

6.0 EXCAVATION CONDITIONS

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Attachments:

Appendix A Record of Test Boring Appendix B Notes Related to Test Borings Appendix C Discussion of Soil Groups

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 1 of 19

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description

The site is located at 33100 Tamiami Trail E in Ochopee, FL as shown in Figure 1. The proposed development consists of the construction of a new Fire Operations Center for the Big Cypress National Preserve (BICY) at the above-mentioned location. It is UES understanding that the proposed construction consists of a hangar, pole barn, two buildings (EOC & FOC), paved roadways and parking lots, as well as an aviation overflow.

A conceptual site plan prepared by Henry Adams Consulting Engineering, dated December 1, 2022, was provided by the client as shown in Figure 2. The site currently consists of lightly vegetated land within BICY National Preserve HQ and its associated paved parking lot.

Structural details were not provided by the client. For purpose of this report and analysis, UES has estimated foundation loading at 100 kips for any isolated column footings and 5 kips per linear foot for continuous footings. UES anticipates that the proposed structure will be constructed using reinforced concrete, masonry, and structural steel construction. If conditions vary from those indicated above, UES should be requested to review the data to see if the recommendations contained herein are still valid.

1.2 Purpose

The primary purpose of the geotechnical exploration was to evaluate the general type and condition of the subsurface soil materials underlying the project site, to provide professional opinions with respect to site preparation, groundwater conditions, and recommend foundation and pavement design parameters for the proposed construction.

1.3 Scope of Services

The primary objectives of the geotechnical exploration were to collect subsurface data at the proposed project site, summarize test results, and discuss any apparent site conditions that may have geotechnical significance for building construction. The following are provided within this report:

1. Soil boring logs depicting the subsurface soil conditions encountered during the field exploration.

2. A review of each soil sample obtained during the field exploration by the geotechnical engineer.

3. Analysis of the existing soil conditions found during the exploration with the respect to foundation and pavement support.

4. Evaluation and recommendations with respect to foundation support of the structures, including allowable soil bearing pressures, recommended bearing elevations, and other foundation design considerations.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 2 of 19

LE

G

EN

D

SI

TE

FI

U R

E

SI

TE

L

O C

A

TI

O N

P

LA

N

C O

N

ST

R U

C T

FI

R

E

ST

A

TI

O N

B

IC

Y

H Q

C O

M

PL

EX

C

H O

PE

E, F L

U

ES

P R

O

JE

C T

N O

: 2

0.

8.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 3 of 19

U R

E

PR

O

PO

SE

D

S

IT

E

PL

A

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 4 of 19

5. Provide soil criteria and site preparation procedures for construction of the proposed structure.

2.0 OBSERVATIONS

2.1 Site Observation and Historic Data

The subject property is located at 33100 Tamiami Trail E in Ochopee, Florida. The site currently consists of lightly vegetated land within BICY National Preserve HQ and its associated paved parking lot. No soil staining or visual evidence of chemical or petroleum spillage was apparent. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. UES would be pleased to perform these services, if required.

UES reviewed historical data from 1940 to 2021. The 1940 aerial depicts the site covered in moderate to heavy vegetation and undeveloped. The 1969 aerial indicates construction has begun; vegetation was removed to accommodate the building and parking lot area, as well as roadways. The 1984 aerial depicts the existing building (HQ), associated paved parking lot and roadways; the lightly vegetated site is southeast of the building. The site has remained relatively unchanged since then.

2.2 Laboratory Testing and Procedures

Soil samples recovered from UES’s field exploration were returned to the laboratory. A geotechnical engineer visually examined and reviewed the field descriptions of the recovered soils in general accordance with ASTM D-2488. Samples were visually examined to accurately evaluate the subsurface soil properties and site geomorphic conditions. The following tests were performed to aid in classifying the soils and to help evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils: natural moisture content (ASTM D-2216) and percent passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D-1140). Table 1 below presents the summary of laboratory test results of the soils samples tested.

Table1 Summary of Laboratory Results

Boring Sample Depth (feet)

Moisture Content (%)

No. 200 Sieve Analysis (%)

B02 4 – 6 30 15

B03 8 – 10 37 6

Representative samples of the soils encountered during the field exploration will be held in the laboratory for your inspection for 30 days unless UES is notified otherwise.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 5 of 19

U R

E

B

O R

IN

G

L O

C A

TI

O

N P

LA

TE

: B

O R

IN

G

L O

C

AT

IO

N

S W

ER

E

LO

C

AT

ED

U

SI

N G

A M

EA

SU

R

IN

G T

AP

E

AN

D

E

XI

ST

IN

G L

AN

D

M

AR

KS

A

S R

EF

ER

EN

C

E

PO

IN

TS

IN

AD

D

IT

IO

N

, T H

E

LA

TI

TU

D E, L O

N G

IT

U

D E, A N

D E

LE

VA

TI

O

N N

O

TE

D O

N T

H E

BO

R

IN

G

L O

G S

W

ER

E

TA

KE

N

F R

O M

G O

O G

LE

E

AR

TH

TH

ER

EF

O R

E, L

O C

AT

IO

N S

SH

O

W N

O N

T H

E

PL

AN

A

R E

AP

PR

O

XI

M

AT

E.

Le ge nd

SP

T

Bo rin g (2

Ft

SP

T

Bo rin g (1

Ft

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 6 of 19

2.3 Field Exploration

For purposes of this study, the following was performed:

• Ten (10) standard penetration test (SPT) borings (ASTM D-1586) to depths of 25 feet below existing grade.

• Ten (10) standard penetration test (SPT) borings (ASTM D-1586) to depths of 10 feet below existing grade.

Figure 3 shows the approximate test locations performed at the site. The SPT boring method was used as the investigative tool within the borings. Penetration tests were performed in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586, “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. This test procedure consists of driving a 1.4-inch I.D.

split-tube sampler into the soil profile using a 140-pound manual hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows per foot for the second and third 6-inch increments is an indication of soil strength. The SPT borings were performed using a CME-45 and CME- 75, both truck-mounted drill rigs equipped with an automatic hammer. The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were classified and stratified by a geotechnical engineer.

Following completion of the field services, all boreholes were backfilled with excavated soil/rock, and the site generally cleaned, as required.

The results of the classification and stratification are encountered during UES’s exploration are presented in Appendix A “Record of Test Boring”. It should be noted that soil conditions might vary between what is depicted on the attached log and other areas of the site. The soil boring data reflect information from a specific test location only. Site specific survey staking for the test location was not provided for UES’s field exploration.

The boring location was determined in the field by a project engineer by measuring distances and estimating right angles from existing site features. The latitude, longitude, and elevation noted in UES’s boring logs were taken from Google Earth. Google Earth uses WGS-84 or Local Mean Sea Level (MSL) as datum. It should be noted that elevations may not always be correct if fill is added, or site grades change to a site after Google captures the image. The boring location and elevations noted should, therefore, be considered approximate. The boring depths were confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction.

The boring logs depict the observed soils in graphic detail. The Standard Penetration Test boring indicates the penetration resistance, or N-values logged during the drilling and sampling activities. Please refer to Appendix B “Notes Related to the Test Borings” for further clarification of UES’s field exploration. The classifications and descriptions shown on the log are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. All soil samples reviewed have been depicted and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System symbols (i.e., SP, SP-SM, SC, etc.). See in Appendix C “Discussion of Soil Groups”, for a detailed description of various soil groups.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 7 of 19

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions encountered generally consisted of 2” to 4” of topsoil above very loose to very dense, fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of cemented sand fragments from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 2 to 4 feet below ground surface (BGS), underlain by very loose to dense, fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of silt, cemented sand, and shell fragments to a depth of approximately 4 to 6 feet BGS. The next layer consisted of cemented sand fragments with variable amounts of shell fragments and sand to the termination depth of the deepest borings at 25 feet BGS. The SPT N-values ranged between 2 to over 50 blows per foot (refusal).

For a more precise description of the conditions encountered within the soil test borings, refer to the “Record of Test Boring” logs included in Appendix A.

3.1 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered at the approximate depth of 1.5’ to 2’ BGS at the time of drilling (December 2022). Heavy rainfall can lead to its formation which can be dissipated with time under the influence of downward percolation and evaporation from the surface.

It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall and other site-specific influences. Brief ponding of stormwater may occur across the site after heavy rain events.

Because of the nature of the soil, perched water tables may form at different boring locations. This condition might be temporary as it depends on time. Heavy rainfall can lead to its formation which can be dissipate with time under the influence of downward percolation and evaporation from the surface.

No additional investigation was conducted in relation to any existing well field in the vicinity. Well fields can influence water table levels and cause significant fluctuations. If a more comprehensive water table analysis is necessary, UES recommends contacting a registered professional specialized in hydrogeology. UES also recommends that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to assess the potential impact of groundwater on the construction procedure.

4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

A foundation system for any structure must be designed to resist bearing capacity failures, have settlements within tolerable limits for the structure type, and resist environmental forces, which the foundation may be subjected to over the life of the structure.

Environmental forces in Florida can include sinkholes, shrinking and swelling soils, and soil consolidation, among others. It is UES’s opinion that these specific environmental forces have a low risk (on a scale of low, moderate, high) of detrimentally affecting shallow foundation performance at this site.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 8 of 19

The soil bearing capacity is the soil’s ability to support loads without punching into the soil profile. Bearing capacity failures are analogous to shear failures in structural design and are usually sudden and catastrophic.

Based on the scope of the proposed project, it is UES’s opinion that the soils at the site are generally suitable for shallow foundations to support the proposed structure once ground improvement techniques discussed herein have been completed.

The allowable amount of settlement that a structure may tolerate is dependent on several factors including uniformity of settlement, time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties of the structural materials. Generally, total, or uniform settlement does not damage a structure but may affect drainage and utility connections. These can generally tolerate movements of several inches for building construction. In contrast, differential settlement affects a structure’s frame and is limited by the structural flexibility. Shallow foundations appear to be suitable for the proposed project and can be used to support the proposed structure at this site, provided that the existing soils and any fill soils are properly prepared as discussed herein. Shallow foundations can consist of conventional shallow continuous strip footings and isolated spread footings, or a monolithic turned down footing and slab type foundation.

4.2 Site Preparation Recommendations

UES has assumed that the maximum column and wall loads will be in the order of 100 kips and 5 klf, respectively. This information has been utilized in UES’s analysis and any significant deviations from these values should be forwarded to UES’s office for reassessment of the recommendations given in this report.

The following steps shall be incorporated in the construction plans in order to prepare the subgrade soils for construction of spread footings and/or isolated footings to support the proposed structure. The earthwork and testing required herein should be performed under the supervision of UES personnel.:

1. Initial site preparation for the proposed structure should consist of clearing the vegetation and stripping and removal of the topsoil and roots encountered to expose clean granular soils. Disposal of these materials shall be accomplished in accordance with local and municipal guidelines.

2. Existing underground drainage/utility pipes (if any) to be relocated shall be abandoned by either complete removal and subsequent soil backfilling in accordance with the recommendation provided herein or left in-place and filled with “flowable fill”.

3. Following the site stripping, areas of surficial sand should be compacted prior to the placement of any fill. UES recommends a steel drum vibratory roller with a minimum static weight of 20,000 lbs. and minimum vibratory impact energy of 50,000 lbs. The roller should be operated at 2 mph making at least 10 perpendicular overlapping passes. Densification of the soils should be performed within the proposed

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 9 of 19 development areas plus a 5-foot-wide perimeter extending beyond the outside edge of the same, where practical. Densification operations should continue until the subgrade soils are firm and unyielding. Any area of the exposed surface that deflects excessively under the weight of the compaction equipment should be excavated approximately 24 inches and be replaced with compacted structural fill. No section of the subgrade should receive less than 4 passes of the roller or until at least 98% maximum density (ASTM D 1557) is achieved for a depth of at least 1 foot below the excavated surface. Upon completion of the proof rolling, backfill shall be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Fill to be compacted with a vibratory plate tamper or a small walk behind vibratory roller should be placed in lifts not exceeding six inches in loose thickness.

4. The bottom of footing excavations shall be compacted with a steel drum vibratory roller with a minimum static weight of 20,000 lbs. and minimum vibratory impact energy of 36,000 lbs.; (Dynapac CA-250D or equivalent) or equivalent equipment.

The roller should be operated at 2 mph. Additional passes may be necessary if acceptable compaction is not achieved. Density tests shall be completed at footing subgrade to confirm that the soils have achieved a minimum degree of compaction of 95 percent of modified proctor maximum density (ASTM D-1557). The bottom of all footings shall be examined by the engineer or his representative to determine if the soil is free of all organic and/or deleterious materials, and if the required compaction and soil pressures are achieved or if additional compaction is required.

5. Fill material placement (if needed) should be inorganic (classified as SP/SW) containing not more than 5 percent (by weight) fibrous organic materials. Fill materials with silt-size soil fines in excess of 10% should not be used, this includes cyclone sand material. Place fill in maximum 12-inch lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) with a vibratory roller. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or a minimum of 2 test locations per lift, whichever is greater.

6. It is likely that proof-rolling and any subsequent backfill compaction with the aforementioned equipment may induce ground vibrations that can affect the existing nearby structures. A representative from UES’s office can monitor the vibration disturbance using seismograph equipment capable of recording ground velocities that can be used to determine if construction activity at the site is exceeding tolerable vibration levels on adjacent structures as established by the project structural engineer.

7. The contractor shall take into account the final contours and grades as established by the plan when executing his backfilling and compaction operations.

Using vibratory compaction equipment can disturb adjacent structures. If vibration related disturbance to nearby structures may be of concern, vibration levels should be monitored during compaction operations. A representative from this office can monitor the vibration

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 10 of 19 disturbance of adjacent structures; and a proposal for these services can be provided upon your request.

4.4 Design of Footings

Following proper site preparation as recommended in this report, it is UES’s opinion that the proposed structures can be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on existing soils or newly placed engineered fills. A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of isolated spread footings and continuous strip footings.

Provided that the site is prepared in accordance as discussed in this report, foundation settlement is expected to be less than 1 inch total across the structure and 1/2-inch differential between adjacent columns or a horizontal distance of 20 feet.

Shallow foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the bearing soils.

The embedment shall be measured from the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Isolated column footings should be at least 30 inches in width and continuous strip footings should have a width of at least 18 inches, regardless of contact pressure. All footings and columns should be structurally separated from the floor slab so that minor differential foundation settlement can occur without causing damage to the slab-on-grade floor unless a monolithic slab-on-grade foundation is planned.

4.3 In-Situ Soil Parameters for Design

The geotechnical design parameters for this study were obtained on the basis of empirical relationships between the SPT “N”-values and the shear strength of the soil strata, literature review and UES’s local experience. Table 2 below provides recommended geotechnical soil parameters for use in design of ground support systems as well as for geotechnical evaluation of subsurface materials for support of the proposed structure.

The design of temporary support of excavation was not part of UES’s scope of services and UES is assuming that it will be performed by others.

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL SOIL PARAMETERS

GENERAL

MATERIAL

DESCRIPTION

(USCS SYMBOL)

SOIL UNIT WEIGHT

(pcf)

FRICTION

ANGLE

(Degrees)

EARTH PRESSURE

COEFFICIENTS

TOTAL EFFECTIVE

ACTIVE

PASSIVE AT-REST

γt γeff φ Ka Kp Ko Granular Sand (SP) (0’ to 2’)

115 53 31 0.32 3.12 0.48

Silty SAND (SM) (2’-6’)

105 43 28 0.36 2.77 0.53

CEMENTED SAND

Fragments with

Some Sand (GP) (6’ to 25’)

120 58 35 0.27 3.69 0.43

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 11 of 19

4.4 Floor Slabs

The ground floor slab may be supported directly on a granular fill pad following site preparation and foundation construction outlined in this report. For purposes of design, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch may be used. It should be noted that excessive moisture vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs can result in damage to floor coverings, as well as other deleterious effects to the slab-supported equipment or stored items.

An appropriate moisture vapor retarder should be placed beneath the floor slab to reduce moisture vapor from entering the building through the slab. The retarder should be installed in general accordance with applicable ASTM procedures and manufacturer’s installation instructions including sealing the membrane at lapped joints, around pipe penetrations and at the edges of foundations.

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressure

UES recommends that cantilever retaining walls for loading docks be designed to resist the “active” earth pressure. Where the top of the retaining wall and the junctions between the two retaining walls is restrained against movement, UES recommends that “at rest” earth pressure should be used for design.

The recommended soil parameters for the design of the retaining walls are presented in the table below. Additional wall loading from forklifts and deliveries stockpiled near the wall should be accounted for in the design.

The following geotechnical parameters were obtained by using empirically established relationships between the SPT “N” values with various soil/rock properties. The geotechnical soil parameters are presented below:

Recommended General Geotechnical Design Parameters DESIGN COEFFICIENTS (upper soils, 0 – 10 feet BGS)

Design Parameter Recommended Value

Soil Friction Angle (Φ) (deg) 32 At-rest Earth Pressure Coefficient Ko 0.47 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient Ka 0.31 Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient Kp 3.3 Hydrostatic Pressure for Design ϒw 62.4 Coefficient of Wall Friction Between Concrete and In-situ Soils 0.35 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Kv 150 pci Poisson’s Ratio (v´) 0.35 Dry Unit Weight of Soil ϒd 105 pcf Wet Unit Weight of Soil ϒwet 110 pcf

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 12 of 19

DESIGN COEFFICIENTS (upper soils, 0 – 10 feet BGS)

Design Parameter Recommended Value

Effective Unit Weight of Soil ϒeff 48 pcf

The earth coefficients presented above assume the retaining walls would be backfilled with clean granular soils. Where the potential exists for buildup of hydrostatic pressure due to the water table, hydrostatic pressure should be assumed and added to the earth pressure for design, unless drainage is provided behind the retaining wall.

5.0 ROADWAY AND PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General Components

Flexible pavement structures in this geographic area typically consist of an asphaltic wearing course, a base course, and a stabilized subgrade. In addition, concrete pavements can also be utilized and constructed directly on top of prepared grades or on top of a base course and stabilized subgrade for heavier loads. Based on actual conditions found, UES’s experience in the area, and the anticipated traffic weights, a flexible pavement structure is recommended after the placement of geosynthetics. The typical pavement section thicknesses are provided in the following table.

Typical Pavement Section Recommendations

Type of Pavement

Layer Material Description Layer Thickness Light Duty Heavy

Duty*

FDOT

ROW

Flexible (A) FDOT Type S (non FDOT) or SP (FDOT) 1.5 2.5 3

(B) Crushed Base with minimum LBR of 100, compacted to 98% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

6 8 15

(SG) Stabilized sub-grade fill, compacted to 98% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

12 12 12

STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN) 2.7 3.5 4.98

Rigid (C) Florida DOT Portland Cement Concrete NA 8** NA

(B) Crushed Limerock with minimum LBR OF 100, compacted to 98% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

NA - NA

(CG) Compacted sub-grade fill, compacted to 98% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density

NA 12 NA

A = Asphaltic Concrete (Layer Coefficient = 0.44 per inch) B = Base Course (Layer Coefficient = 0.18 per inch) (note: Minimum LBR for recycled concrete is 120 for an equivalent layer coefficient of 0.18 per inch) SG = Stabilized Subgrade (Layer Coefficient = 0.08 per inch) CG = Compacted Subgrade (Layer Coefficient = 0.01 per inch) C = Concrete (based on 4,000 psi compressive strength)

* Based on Table 3.4 from ACI 330, Category “D” – Tractor Trailer Units with one or more trailers ** Can be reduced by 1.0 inch if dowels are used at transverse joints.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 13 of 19

It should be noted that these are the minimum requirements and the final pavement thickness design should be provided by the project civil engineer based on anticipated traffic loadings. Asphalt pavements should be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the Florida Department of Transportation Flexible Pavement Design Manual.

5.2 Compacted Subgrade or Embankment Fill

The subgrade or embankment fill is the layer that supports the structural pavement section. Subgrade and embankment fill should be compacted and in compliance to specifications presented later in the pavement site preparation procedure section of this report.

5.3 Stabilized Subgrade

The stabilized subgrade is the portion of the pavement section between the compacted subgrade or embankment fill and the base course. UES recommends subgrade material be compacted to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density value (AASHTO T-180). The subgrade material should be stabilized to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40.

Perform compliance tests on the stabilized subgrade for full depth at a frequency of one test per 5,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater.

5.4 Base Course

The base course is the portion of the pavement section between the surface course and stabilized subgrade.

In areas where separation of at least 1½ feet between the estimated wet seasonal high groundwater table and the bottom of the base material occurs, UES recommends the base course be limerock minimum (LBR=100). Limerock material should be mined from an approved source. The limerock should be placed in lifts no greater than 6-inches and compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density value

(AASHTO T-180).

If separation between the estimated wet seasonal high groundwater table and the bottom of the base material is less than 1½ feet, UES recommends that crushed limerock not be used. The base course should be of an asphaltic base (ABC-3 with a minimum Marshall Stability of 1,000 pounds). In addition, to minimize the potential for perching of the groundwater table, UES does not recommend the use of chemically stabilized subgrade (i.e. sludge). Instead, the subgrade should be mechanically stabilized (compacted) to a minimum of 98 percent of the soil's Modified Proctor maximum dry density value

(AASHTO T-180).

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 14 of 19

Perform compliance tests on the base course to its respective depth (6” or 8”) at a frequency of one test per 5,000 square feet, or a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater.

5.5 Surface Course

The surface course is usually the portion of the pavement section which is exposed directly to traffic. In the light duty areas where there is occasional truck traffic but predominantly passenger cars, UES recommends using asphaltic concrete, which has a stability of 1,500 pounds. Heavy-duty areas where truck traffic is predominant, UES recommends using asphaltic concrete, which has a minimum stability of 1,500 pounds.

Asphaltic concrete mixes shall consist of the materials actually used and should concur to a current approved design.

Samples of the materials delivered to the project should be tested to verify that the aggregate gradation and asphalt content satisfies the mix design specifications. Asphalt should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory density.

Perform compliance tests on the surface course by coring to evaluate the material thickness and to perform laboratory densities at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet or a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater.

5.6 Concrete Pavement

The minimum rigid pavement thickness recommended in this report is based upon concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Fill that may be required to raise grades in slab areas should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).

The pavement slabs should be reinforced to make them as rigid as practical. Proper joints should be provided at the junctions of slabs and foundation systems so that a small amount of independent movement can without causing structural damage. Construction and control joints should be accordance with ACI and Industry practices. The ACI 330R guidelines recommend contraction joints based on the thickness of the slab. A contraction joint predetermines the location of cracks caused by restrained shrinkage of the concrete and be the effects of loads and warping and curling.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 15 of 19

The depth of the contraction joint should be at least ¼ of the slab thickness. The width of the cut depends on whether the joint will be sealed. A narrow joint, generally 1/10 to 1/8

in. wide, is common for unsealed joints. Cuts at least ¼ in. wide are required for sealed joints. Joint sealant manufacturers’ recommendations should be followed for the depth and width of joints that are to be sealed. For this project, all joints should be sealed.

Sawing operations should be done within 4 to 12 hours after the localized finishing of an area.

Construction joints provide the interface between areas of concrete placed at different times during the course of a project. Due to the high traffic loads, load transfer across construction joints is recommended. Keyways are not recommended due to poor performance histories. UES recommends the use of dowels across construction joints in accordance with the requirements of ACI 330R.

Expansion (isolation) joints are recommended at pavement areas that will move independently of each other. Such areas include where aisles intersect or near fixed structures such as inlets, light poles, manholes, and buildings. These full depth joints should contain a compressible filler to prevent the adjacent slabs from bonding to each other.

UES recommends distributed steel reinforcement to control the opening of intermediate cracks between the joints.

The sole function of the distributed steel is to hold together the fracture faces of cracks form. The size of the steel (welded wire fabric) should be sized in accordance with section

3.8.1 of ACI 330R.

Lastly, actual pavement section thickness should be provided by the Design Civil Engineer based on traffic loads, volume, and the owner’s design life requirements.

The above section represents the minimum thickness representative of typical local construction procedures and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. All pavement materials and construction procedures should conform to the FDOT, American Concrete Institute (ACI), or appropriate city/county requirements.

5.7 Effects of Water

Many roadways and parking areas have prematurely deteriorated due to intrusion of the wet seasonal high groundwater table or surface runoff mitigation.

If site preparation work is performed during the rainy season (May through October), special care should be taken to maintain positive drainage from the paved areas to drains or ditches around the site. Unexpected wet periods can also occur in Florida during the “dry” season. Such events can raise water tables to levels above seasonal highs without the associated high temperatures to evaporate ponded water. Therefore, the contractor should practice wet weather means and methods for earthwork during the “dry” season as well.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 16 of 19

UES recommends the roadways and parking areas be constructed with a minimum separation of 1½ feet between the wet seasonal high groundwater table and the base course, independent of the type of base material used. In addition, the parking areas should be constructed with full-depth curb sections. Using extruded curb sections, which lie directly on top of the final surface course or eliminating the curbing entirely, may allow migration of runoff and/or irrigation water to migrate between the base and surface course.

This migration can result in separation of the surface course from the base course causing a rippling effect, which result in an increase deterioration of the pavement.

If dewatering is required, UES recommends that the groundwater level be lowered and maintained at a depth of at least 2 feet below bearing levels and excavation bottoms during construction. Dewatering may consist of ditching, well points, or other means.

However, groundwater control means and methods are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. Furthermore, UES recommends that the Contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to determine the groundwater impact on the construction procedures. If groundwater is encountered during trenching or foundation installation, the Geotechnical Engineer of Record should be notified so that they can determine whether there is a need for underslab drainage, perimeter drains, or other recommendations for dewatering.

5.8 Construction Traffic

Incomplete pavement sections or areas of pavement designed for light duty traffic will not perform satisfactory under construction traffic loadings. UES recommends all construction traffic (i.e. construction equipment, etc.) be re-routed away from these areas or the pavement sections be designed to support these loading conditions.

5.9 Pavement Site Preparation

The following steps shall be incorporated in the construction plans in order to prepare the subgrade soils for construction of the pavement. The earthwork and testing required herein should be performed under the supervision of UES personnel:

1. Initial site preparation Initial site preparation should consist of performing dewatering operations if necessary prior to any earthwork.

2. The proposed construction limits should be cleared, stripped and grubbed of all construction debris, trees, and vegetation and associated root systems to a depth of their vertical reach. This should be done within and to a distance of 5 feet beyond the parking perimeter.

3. Prior to any fill operations, the existing ground surface should be compacted. GFA recommends a medium weight roller be used to prepare the site for the proposed pavement section. Upon completion of the proof-rolling, density tests should be performed at a frequency of one test per 5,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 17 of 19 test locations, whichever is greater, to confirm a minimum compaction compliance of 98 percent of modified proctor maximum density (AASHTO T-180).

4. Place fill material, as required. The fill material should be inorganic (classified as

SP/GW) containing not more than 5 percent (by weight) organic materials. Fill materials with silt-size soil fines in excess of 10% should not be used, this includes cyclone sand material.

Place fill in maximum 12-inch lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (AASHTO T-180) with a roller as mentioned previously.

5. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per

5,000 square feet per lift in the pavement areas, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater.

6. The appropriate pavement section should be constructed in accordance to specification presented earlier in this report.

7. The contractor shall take into account the final contours and grades as established by the paving and drainage plan when executing his backfilling and compaction operations.

Using vibratory compaction equipment can disturb adjacent structures. If vibration related disturbance to nearby structures may be of concern, vibration levels should be monitored during compaction operations. A representative from this office can monitor the vibration disturbance of adjacent structures; and a proposal for these services can be provided upon your request.

6.0 EXCAVATION CONDITIONS

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P”. This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations.

It is mandated by this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the OSHA guidelines. It is UES’s understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 18 of 19

In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

UES are providing this information solely as a service to UES’s client. UES is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners and other members of the design team for the proposed project. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical engineering practices; no other warranty is expressed or implied.

The evaluation submitted in this report is based in part upon the data collected during a field exploration. However, the nature and extent of variations throughout the subsurface profile may not become evident until the time of construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to reevaluate information and professional opinions as provided in this report. In the event changes are made in the nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the evaluation and opinions contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by UES. Lastly, in accepting this report, the client understands that the data obtained from the soil borings is intended for foundation analysis only and is not to be used for excavating or backfilling pricing estimates.

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the tests performed at the location indicated on the attached Figure 3. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings. While the borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their vertical reaches, local variations characteristic of the subsurface soils of the region are anticipated and may be encountered. The delineation between soil types shown on the soil logs is approximate and the description represents UES’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated boring locations on the particular date drilled.

The scope of UES’s services did not include an environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil and groundwater.

Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of UES’s client.

UES should be provided the opportunity to review the final foundation specifications and review foundation design drawings, in order to determine whether UES’s recommendations have been properly interpreted, communicated, and implemented. If UES is not afforded the opportunity to participate in construction related aspects of foundation installation as recommended in this report or any report addendum, UES will accept no responsibility for the interpretation of UES's recommendations made in this report or on a report addendum for foundation performance.

UES Project No. 2130.2200078.0000 Page 19 of 19

Any third-party reliance on UES’s geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without the expressed written consent of UES. The SPT methodology (ASTM D-1586) used in performing UES’s borings and for determining penetration resistance is specific to the sampling tools utilized and does not reflect the ease or difficulty of advancing other tools, equipment, or materials. In addition, an environmental assessment regarding the potential for contaminated soil and/or groundwater on this site has not been performed as part of this study.

APPENDIX A

Record of Test Borings

TOPSOIL.

Medium dense, tan-light gray, fine to medium grained SAND (SP) with CEMENTED SAND fragments.

Loose, tan-light gray, fine to medium grained SAND (SP) with CEMENTED SAND fragments.

Loose, gray, fine to medium grained SILTY SAND (SM).

CEMENTED SAND fragments with SHELL fragments, with some sand.

Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.

0.3

4.0

6.0

25.0

HAMMER TYPE 140# with 30 in Drop - Automatic Hammer

HOLE DIAMETER

DRILLER Hector Parada

DRILL RIG CME-45

METHOD Standard Penetration Test

HOLE DEPTH 25 ft

DATE STARTED 12/23/22 COMPLETED 12/23/22

AT TIME OF DRILLING 2.00 ft / Elev 4.00 ft

NOTE:

GROUND WATER LEVEL:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Universal Engineering Sciences

LATITUDE 25.900008 LONGITUDE -81.321064

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

N V

A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

PROJECT NUMBER 2130.2200078.0000 PROJECT LOCATION 33100 Tamiami Trail E, Ochopee, FL 34141

LOG OF BORING B01

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

CLIENT Walker Architects, Inc.

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

O R

G A

N

IC

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

-5

-10

-15

D E

P T

H (f t)

PROJECT NAME Construct Fire Station & BICY HQ Complex

G F

A G

E O

T E

C H

B H

G

F A

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/4 /2

:5

C

:\U S

E R

S \D

LO

P

E Z

3.

T

E A

M U

E S

\U N

IV

E

R S

A L

E N

G

IN

E E

R

IN

G -T

E A

M U

E S

\U E

S S

F L

G E

O

D O

C U

M E

N T

S \A

C T

IV

E

P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

.2

8.

B

IG

C

Y P

R E

S S

N A

T

IO

N A

L P

R E

S E

R V

E

G E

O \G

IN

T

\2

0.

_B

IG

C

Y P

R E

S S

.G P

J Universal Engineering Sciences 8050 NW 77th Court Medley, FL 33166

(305) 249-8434

TOPSOIL.

Loose, light gray, fine to medium grained SAND (SP) with CEMENTED SAND fragments.

Loose, gray, fine to medium grained SILTY SAND (SM).

CEMENTED SAND fragments with SHELL fragments, with some sand.

Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.

0.3

4.0

6.0

25.0

HAMMER TYPE 140# with 30 in Drop - Automatic Hammer

HOLE DIAMETER

DRILLER Hector Parada

DRILL RIG CME-45

METHOD Standard Penetration Test

HOLE DEPTH 25 ft

DATE STARTED 12/23/22 COMPLETED 12/23/22

AT TIME OF DRILLING 2.00 ft / Elev 2.00 ft

NOTE:

GROUND WATER LEVEL:

DRILLING CONTRACTOR Universal Engineering Sciences

LATITUDE 25.900053 LONGITUDE -81.320953

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

N V

A

LU

E

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

FINES CONTENT (%)

20 40 60 80

SPT N VALUE

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80

PL LLMC

PROJECT NUMBER 2130.2200078.0000 PROJECT LOCATION 33100 Tamiami Trail E, Ochopee, FL 34141

LOG OF BORING B02

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

CLIENT Walker Architects, Inc.

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

O R

G A

N

IC

C O

N T

E N

T

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (f t)

-5

-10

-15

-20

D E

P T

H (f t)

PROJECT NAME Construct Fire Station & BICY HQ Complex

G F

A G

E O

T E

C H

B H

G

F A

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/4 /2

:5

C

:\U S

E R

S \D

LO

P

E Z

3.

T

E A

M U

E S

\U N

IV

E

R S

A L

E N

G

IN

E E

R

IN

G -T

E A

M U

E S

\U E

S S

F L

G E

O

D O

C U

M E

N T

S \A

C T

IV

E

P R

O

JE

C T

S \2

.2

8.

B

IG

C

Y P

R E

S S

N A

T

IO

N A

L P

R E

S E

R V

E

G E

O \G

IN

T

\2

0.

_B

IG

C

Y P

R E

S S

.G P

J Universal Engineering Sciences 8050 NW 77th Court

TOPSOIL.

Medium dense, gray,…