Attachment_0011_UESDOCS-_2009660-v1-RPT_GEO_FELLERS_DOCK_AND_PIER_REPLACEMENT_NEW_SMYRNA_BEACH_0001.pdf

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SSUUBBSSUURRFFAACCEE EEXXPPLLOORRAATTIIOONN

Fellers Dock and Pier Replacement

Turner Flats Estuary New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida

Universal Project No. 0330.2300013.0000

March 24, 2023

PREPARED FOR:

Dredging & Marine Consultants

6231 PGA Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32129

PREPARED BY:

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC 820 Brevard Avenue

Rockledge, Florida 32955

(321) 638-0808

Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota •

Miami • Panama City • Pensacola • Fort Pierce • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA • Tifton, GA

March 24, 2023

Dredging & Marine Consultants 4643 S. Clyde Morris Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32129

Attention: Ms. Alexis Sorrell, M.E., B.S., EIT

Reference: Subsurface Exploration Fellers Dock and Pier Replacement Turner Flats Estuary New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.2300013.0000

Dear Ms. Sorrell:

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration at the above referenced site in Volusia County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by Ms. Natalie Tejada with Dredging & Marine Consultants, and was conducted as outlined in Universal’s Proposal No. 0330.0922.00010. 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 and foundation design parameters for the proposed Fellers Dock and Pier structure.

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, LLC

Certificate of Authorization No. 549

Robert Smith, P.E., PMP Brad Faucett, M.S. P.E.

Geotechnical Department Manager Regional Engineer Florida Professional Engineer No. 78130 Florida Professional Engineer No. 33123

1 – Client (by e-mail) UES DOCS# 2009660 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 PURPOSE

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

6.0 LIMITATIONS

7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES

7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS

7.2 MUCK PROBES

8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES

8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

8.2 ORGANIC CONTENT TESTS

9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY

10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS

11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

11.2 ORGANIC CONTENT TEST

12.0 PROPOSED FELLERS DOCK AND PIER FOUNDATIONS

12.1 ANALYSIS

12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

13.0 DEWATERING

14.0 EXCAVATIONS

15.0 CLOSURE

LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Generalized Soil Profile – Middle to End of Pier Table II: Generalized Soil Profile – Landward End of Pier Table III: Organic Content Test Results ii

FIGURES

Boring Location Plan ................................................................................................. Figure No. 1

APPENDICES

Boring Logs ............................................................................................................ Appendix A Key to Boring Logs ...................................................................................................... Appendix A

EXHIBITS

GBA Document ............................................................................................................... Exhibit 1

Fellers Dock and Pier Replacement Universal Project No. 0330.2300013.0000 New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida Subsurface Exploration

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration for the Fellers Dock and Pier Replacement project in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida.

Our exploration was authorized by Ms. Natalie Tejada with Dredging & Marine Consultants, and was conducted as outlined in Universal’s Proposal No. 0330.0922.00010. 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

It is our understanding from review of information submitted to Universal by the client that the proposed project will consist of the reconstruction of the Fellers Dock and Pier within the Turner Flats Estuary in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. The new Fellers Dock and Pier will be of the approximate same size and construction as the existing dock and pier as shown on the attached Figure No. 1. The proposed structure will be of wood frame construction and will be supported upon a series of timber piling.

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 geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design parameters for the proposed pier structure.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject site is located within Section 28, Township 18 South, Range 35 East in Volusia County, Florida. More specifically, the proposed Fellers Dock and Pier is situated within the Turner Flats Inlet on the west side of the Apollo Beach District of the Canaveral National Seashore in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. At the time of drilling, a portion of the dock and pier structure had colapased. The remaining area consisted of mangroves and other natural vegetation.

5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The services conducted by Universal during our subsurface exploration program were as follows:

• Drill two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings in accessible areas along the Fellers

Dock and Pier alignment to a depth of 30 and 50 feet below existing land surface (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.

• Complete a series of probes in the Turner Flats Estuary at the end of the pier.

• Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.

• Prepare a report that documents the results of our subsurface exploration and analysis with geotechnical engineering recommendations.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in order to aid the client/engineer in the design of the proposed Fellers Dock and Pier in New Smyrna Beach, 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 that may occur across the project area. 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. This report does not reflect the full vertical or horizontal extents of deleterious soil encountered at this site; and 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 the 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 manmade 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 manmade 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 two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, designated B2 through B3 on the attached Figure No. 1, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split-barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. The soil samples recovered from the split-barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]).

The SPT soil boring at B2 was performed with a tri-pod mounted drilling rig and the SPT soil boring completed at B3 was performed with a CME 45 truck-mounted drilling rig. Universal located the test borings by using a handheld 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.

1.

7.2 MUCK PROBES

A series of muck probes were completed in the Turner Flats Estuary within the western sections of the pier alignment using a boat and by advancing a slender rod through the soil until refusal.

These probes were performed in general accordance with ASTM D4544 procedures (Standard Practice for Estimating Peat Deposit Thickness). During these procedures, a cylindrical steel rod is inserted into the near surface soils and the approximate depth of surficial soft/loose soils is estimated by the amount of resistance to penetration.

8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES

8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on six (6) representative soil samples. These samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve). The percentage of materials passing the #200 sieve in each tested sample is shown on the appropriate boring log (attached).

8.2 ORGANIC CONTENT TESTS

We also performed two (2) organic content tests in accordance with ASTM D 2974 (Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils). These samples were obtained at boring location B2 at depths of approximately 1 to 4 feet bls. The results of these tests are found in the laboratory results section of this report.

9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY

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 central SPT boring locations and the end of pier probings is presented below in Table I. Table II is provided for the results of our SPT boring at the landward end of pier. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs.

TABLE I

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE – MIDDLE TO END OF PIER

Depth Encountered

(feet, bls) Approximate Thickness

(feet) Soil Description

Surface 4 Organic Silty fine sands with root mats (muck) [OH];

very loose.

4 12 Fine sand [SP], loose to medium dense.

12 5 Fine sand with broken shell [SP], medium dense to dense.

NOTE: [ ] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation.

+ indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined.

At the western end of the pier very loose fine sand and shell [SP] was encountered to approximately 1½ feet.

TABLE II

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE – LANDWARD END OF PIER

Depth

Encountered (feet, bls)

Approximate Thickness (feet) Soil Description

Surface 1 Fill consisting of fine sand with silt and varying amounts of roots, broken shell and clay [SP-SM]

1 49 Fine sand with varying amounts of broken shell [SP], medium dense to dense.

10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

We measured the water levels in the SPT boreholes on March 14, 2023 and March 16, 2023 after the groundwater was allowed to stabilize. The groundwater levels, as shown on the attached boring logs, were encountered at depths ranging from 0.3 feet bls at boring location B2 to 2.3 feet at boring location B3. We noted approximately 3 feet of water depth at the end of the pier. 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 boring program was conducted.

11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS

11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sand [SP]. The percentage of soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled.

11.2 ORGANIC CONTENT TESTS

The results of the organic content tests are displayed in the following Table III.

TABLE III

ORGANIC CONTENT TEST RESULTS

Boring/Probe Location

Approximate Sample Depth

(feet, bls) Soil Description Moisture

Content (%) Organic

Content (%)

B2 1 Organically silty sand with root mats [OH] 46.8 3.8

B2 3 Organically silty sand with root mats [OH] 53.6 8.8

12.0 PROPOSED FELLERS DOCK AND PIER FOUNDATIONS

12.1 ANALYSIS

We understand that construction of the proposed Fellers Dock and Pier structure could consist of similar construction as currently in place. Therefore, it is assumed that the dock and pier will be primarily of wood framing, supported upon a system of 8 inch diameter timber piles. For purposes of this report and based of similar construction we have assumed a maximum load for the structure of not to exceed 2 tons per pile. If these loadings are exceeded in the final design, then modifications to the recommendations listed below will need to be made by Universal.

Based upon the results of our subsurface exploration of the observation of the pier area, the soil conditions across this site appear to be mostly loose to dense fine sand [SP]. However, some very lose fine sand and organic silty sand is anticipated within the upper 2 to 5 feet on the water side of the pier.

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, pier location or grading plans change from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes.

12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The timber piles for this project should be treated with a wood preservative, since they will be subjected to alternate wetting and drying. We assume that the installation of the timber piles will probably include pre-drilling or “jetting” the piles to near their full-depth, and then “seating” them with a hammer fitted to a large crane, or other similar piece of equipment.

In order to develop the required compressional capacities, and to help provide protection against such items as scour, we recommend that the piling for the proposed pier be pre-drilled or jetted to roughly 7 feet below the mud-line (or ground surface) level; and then be driven at least another 3 feet, or until the project driving (dynamic) criteria is reached, whichever is deeper. Compressive capacities for such piling are anticipated to be at least 2 tons per pile.

Wood or timber piles should be driven with a protective driving cap or ring when necessary to prevent brooming or splitting of the butt. When brooming or splitting occurs, such piles shall be cut back to solid wood before the final resistance to penetration is measured. After driving to the necessary penetration, the broomed end should be cut square and any exposed scars, as well as the fresh end cut, should be coated with a generous application of preservative

For the final seating, the timber piles may be driven with a small air hammer, diesel hammer, or a drop hammer delivering a minimum energy per blow as determined in accordance with the latest edition of the FDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction (Section 455). The hammer should be operated according to manufacturer's recommendations at all times. Pile driving should be as continuous as possible and should proceed without stopping over at least the last 3 feet of penetration. However, the pile bearing requirements shall also be achieved before driving operations are terminated.

For driven piles, we recommend that a determination of dynamic capacity, based on the proposed pile type, hammer, cushion, etc. (to be furnished by the contractor), be performed before the start of pile driving operations. For such an analysis, the use of wave equation techniques is recommended.

Piles have lower capacities in groups. Spacing them at least 3 pile diameters apart, center to center, will help minimize the group effect.

The piling contractor should be made aware that occasional hard driving/drilling/jetting conditions will probably occur within the variable dense sand & shell formations and/or cemented rock layers at this project, in order to obtain the recommended minimum pile tip embedment.

We recommend that pile driving operations be observed and documented by Universal so that the development of dynamic capacity can be verified and any problematic driving conditions can be observed and resolved expeditiously.

The design and installation of the recommended piles should be according to the requirements listed in Chapter 18 of the Florida Building Code, unless there are other, more stringent, governmental code requirements that apply.

Assuming the proposed piling foundations are designed & installed according to our recommendations, we estimate maximum total vertical settlements of the proposed new dock structures will be less than ¾ inch and maximum differential settlements will be less than ½ inch. Almost all of the expected settlement will take place as soon as the maximum structural loads have been applied.

13.0 DEWATERING

Based on the water level conditions encountered, and depending upon the construction methods used, control of the groundwater will probably not be required at this project. However, if dewatering does become necessary, 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 silty fine sand [SM] is less permeable than a fine sand [SP]. The fine sand with silt [SP-SM] soil type expected to be encountered at shallow depths at this site can usually be dewatered by well pointing.

14.0 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 worker safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

15.0 CLOSURE

The soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration of the property and the results of the laboratory analysis identified no significant geotechnical issues that would impact the proposed construction, as we currently understand it, using conventional construction practices. Standard methods of pile installation 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 Daytona office to provide inspection services during construction for confirmation of the adequacy of the pile installation operations.

FIGURES

FELLERS DOCK AND PIER REPLACEMENT

TURNER FLATS

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

BORING LOCATION PLAN

B2

B3

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING

LEGEND:

Approximate area of probes

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PAGE NO:

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

AutoCAD SHX Text

UNIVERSAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

RS

AutoCAD SHX Text

MARCH 23, 2023

AutoCAD SHX Text

BF

AutoCAD SHX Text

MARCH 23, 2023

AutoCAD SHX Text N.T.S.

AutoCAD SHX Text 0330.2300013.0000

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIGURE 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

APPENDIX A

11-10-1

1-P-P

5-3-2

3-2-2

1-3-2

2-3-2

10-12-12

13-12-14

15-26-24

7-7-8

P organic SILTY SAND with roots, dark brown, (muck) [OH] organic SILTY SAND with wood, dark brown, (muck) [OH] organic SILTY SAND with roots, dark brown, (muck) [OH] fine SAND, grey, [SP] fine SAND with broken shell, grey, [SP]

BORING TERMINATED AT 30'

P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY

WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER

3.6

2.6

4.0

46.8

53.6

24.1

14.7

17.7

3.8

8.8

CLIENT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

WATER TABLE (ft):

DATE OF READING:

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0.3

3/14/2023

3/14/23

3/14/23

PM, PG, JH

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

BORING LOG

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

APPENDIX:

PROJECT: BORING DESIGNATION: SHEET:

SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

(FT.)

S A M P L E

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

W.T.

S Y M B O L

DESCRIPTION

-200

MC

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL PI

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

0330.2300013.0000

A

FELLERS DOCK AND PIER REPLACEMENT

TURNER FLATS

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

B L3

B2 1 of 1

7-7-6

7-9-13

4-12-15

7-18-24

8-17-18

10-20-21

11-14-14

6-14-12

8-13-15

5-8-7

4-5-5

4-6-8

3-5-5

3-4-4 fine SAND with silt, trace of roots, broken shell and clay lumps, brown, [SP-SM] (fill) fine SAND, trace of broken shell, brown, [SP] fine SAND, trace of broken shell, grey, [SP] fine SAND with broken shell, grey, [SP]

BORING TERMINATED AT 50'

4.0

4.1

2.8

17.4

24.3

16.4

CLIENT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

WATER TABLE (ft):

DATE OF READING:

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 2.3

3/16/2023

3/16/23

3/16/23

JL, DW

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

BORING LOG

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

APPENDIX:

PROJECT: BORING DESIGNATION: SHEET:

SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

(FT.)

S A M P L E

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

W.T.

S Y M B O L

DESCRIPTION

-200

MC

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL PI

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

0330.2300013.0000

A

FELLERS DOCK AND PIER REPLACEMENT

TURNER FLATS

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

B L3

B3 1 of 1

MH/OH

[ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH]

Silt or Clay or Gravel [SM,SC,GM,GC] Silty or Clayey Sand

Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel

[ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH]

or Clay [SP-SM,SP-SC] Sand or Gravel with Silt

GRAVELS [GW]

[GP-GC]

GRAVELS WITH CLAY

POORLY-GRADED

[GP-GM]

GRAVELS WITH SILT

POORLY-GRADED

POORLY-GRADED

WELL-GRADED

GRAVELS [GP]

SILTY CLAYEY SANDS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.

** LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487 - UNIFIED SOIL

HARD - more than 30 Blows/ft.

VERY STIFF - 17 to 30 Blows/ft.

STIFF - 9 to 16 Blows/ft.

FIRM - 5 to 8 Blows/ft.

SOFT - 3 to 4 Blows/ft.

VERY SOFT - 0 to 2 Blows/ft.

SLIGHT PLASTICITY

(SILT AND CLAY)

(SAND AND GRAVEL)

RELATIVE DENSITY

SCIENCES, INC.

ENGINEERING

UNIVERSAL

CH/OH

VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blows/ft.

LOOSE - 5 to 10 Blows/ft.

MEDIUM DENSE - 11 to 30 Blows/ft.

DENSE - 31 to 50 Blows/ft.

VERY DENSE - more than 50 Blows/ft.

P

A

SS

IN

G

N O

.2

S

IE

VE

[ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH]

Sandy or Gravelly Silt or Clay

[SC-SM]

INORGANIC SILTS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSFINE GRAINED SOILSCOARSE GRAINED SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS

[CL-ML]

LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTY CLAY

[ML]

CL/OL

GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL

KEY TO BORING LOGS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART*

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.1

CONTENTS [PT]**

WITH HIGH ORGANIC

POORLY-GRADED

ML/OLCL-ML

PLASTICITY CHART

LIQUID LIMIT

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

Sand or Gravel [SP,SW,GP,GW]

[SC]

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS

PLASTICITY [OH]**

MEDIUM TO HIGH

ORGANIC SILTS/CLAYS

PLASTICITY [CH]

INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH

PLASTICITY [MH]

INORGANIC SILTS HIGH

LOW PLASTICITY [OL]**

ORGANIC SILTS/CLAYS

LOW TO MEDIUM

CLAYEY SANDS

[SM]

SILTY SANDS

[SP-SC]

SANDS WITH CLAY

POORLY-GRADED

SANDS [SW]

PLASTICITY [CL]

SANDS [SP]

[SP-SM]

0 10090807060

CONSISTENCY

WELL-GRADED

[GC]

CLAYEY GRAVELS

[GM]

SILTY GRAVELS

POORLY-GRADED

SANDS WITH SILT

EXHIBIT 1

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even 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 Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include:

• the client’s 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, parking 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 it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or 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. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.

Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve 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 prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.

Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.

Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a 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 engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical 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.

Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org