15-05 Original Design and Alterations - Geotechnical August 2019.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool

420 Community College Parkway SE Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida

August 27, 2019 Terracon Project No. H1195191

Prepared for:

City of Palm Bay

Palm Bay, Florida

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Winter Park, Florida

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1675 Lee Road Winter Park, F lor ida 32789 P [407] 740 6110 F [407] 740 6112 terracon.com

August 27, 2019

City of Palm Bay 120 Malabar Road Palm Bay, Florida 32907

Attn: Mr. Jeff Whitehead, Parks & Recreation Assistant Director P: [321] 953-8912 E: Jeff.Whitehead@palmbayflorida.org

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool 420 Community College Parkway SE Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida Terracon Project Number: H1195191

Dear Mr. Whitehead:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number BE196040, authorized by PO # 191702.

This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides engineering conclusions regarding geotechnical conditions which may be related to the observed pool water loss.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Certificate of Authorization Number 8830

Brendan S. O’Brien, P.E. Jay W. Casper, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal Florida PE #52047

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Brendan S. O’Brien, P.E. 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.

mailto:Jeff.Whitehead@palmbayflorida.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology

Regional Geology General Potential For Sinkhole Development

3.2 Typical Profile

3.3 Groundwater

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Temporary Construction Dewatering .........Error! Bookmark not defined.

Site Preparation.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Material Requirements ..............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Compaction Requirements ........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Utility Trench Backfill ..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Grading and Drainage ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Earthwork Construction Considerations .....Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3 Foundations ..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Foundation Design Recommendations ......Error! Bookmark not defined.

Foundation Construction Considerations ...Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.4 Seismic Considerations.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.5 Floor Slabs............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Floor Slab Design Recommendations .......Error! Bookmark not defined.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations.....Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

GENERAL COMMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Topographic Vicinity Map Exhibit A-2 U.S.D.A. Soils Map Exhibit A-3 Soil Survey Descriptions Exhibit A-4 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-5 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-6 to A-8 Boring Logs B-1 to B-3

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PALM BAY AQUATIC CENTER POOL

420 COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARKWAY SE

PALM BAY, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Terracon Project No. H1195191 August 14, 2019

INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for the Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool located along the north side of Manchester Circle, west of Community College Parkway SE in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida as shown on the Topographic Vicinity Map included as Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A. Three soil borings, designated B-1 through B-3, were performed to depths of between 15 and 25 feet below the existing ground surface through the pool deck and also outside the fence. Logs of the borings along with a Boring Location Diagram (Exhibit A-4) are included in Appendix A of this report. Laboratory testing procedures are included in Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

n subsurface soil conditions n identification of geotechnical cause(s) of the observed pool water loss n groundwater conditions

PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Structure

An existing 323,775-gallon swimming pool that covers an area of about 8,950 square feet. The pool generally varies in depth from “zero-entry” to about 6 feet 8 inches, with a deep end (“diving bowl”) that generally varies in depth from 11 feet 2 inches to 12 feet 3 inches.

Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool ■ Palm Bay, Florida August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

Item Description

Construction Type

Galvanized steel framing with stainless steel panels with a laminated PVC surface. Steel framing supported by reinforced concrete footings. Provided plans indicate footing widths range from 3 feet 6 inches wide to 7 feet wide, and from 6 to 8 inches thick. The pool floor slab is constructed as a floating slab on grade (PVC-covered), 5 inches thick, unreinforced except for in the diving bowl.

Maximum loads Columns: plans appear to indicate no columns Walls: 4 kips per linear foot (assumed) Slabs: not provided, assumed to be water weight only

Grading Terracon assumes existing grades are to be maintained.

Terracon understands the pool had been leaking a significant volume of water, about 2 to 3 inches of water per day. Terracon understands the lights within the pool had been replaced/repaired about a year ago, and that the significant pool volume loss started to occur after the pool light work. Terracon also understands that there has been concern that soil has been washed away from the exterior of the pool due to the pool water loss.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location This project is located along the north side of Manchester Circle, west of Community College Parkway SE, in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida.

Current ground cover The pool deck is concrete. The area surrounding the pool, outside the fence, is covered with grass.

Existing topography

The site currently appears nearly level. The USGS topographic quadrangle map “Fellsmere NW, Florida” depicts the ground surface near elevation +30 feet referencing the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29).

Surface Water The USGS topographic quadrangle map “Fellsmere NW, Florida” depicts a drainage ditch oriented east-west, just north of the Palm Bay Aquatic Center, as well as areas of swamp surrounding the site.

Based on street level photography, the water level in the drainage ditch appears to be on the order of 8 feet below the top of the bank.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The geology of the site is presented in the following report section. A discussion of subsurface conditions encountered in our borings follows the geology section.

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

3.1 Geology

Regional Geology According to Water Resources of Brevard County, Florida, Florida Geological Society Report of Investigation (RI) No. 28 (Brown, Kenner, Crooks, and Foster, 1962), Geologic Section A-A’ (Well 807-037-15 being closest to the subject site), the lithology of the site vicinity generally consists of Pleistocene and Recent deposits, underlain by Upper Miocene or Pliocene deposits, underlain by the Hawthorn Formation. As interpreted from Geologic Section A-A’, the Pleistocene and Recent deposits extend to about 20 feet below mean sea level, the Upper Miocene or Pliocene deposits extend to about 110 feet below mean sea level, and the Hawthorn Formation extends to about 200 feet below mean sea level. RI 28 mentions deeper limestone units including the Ocala Group and other limestones of the Floridan Aquifer. However, the deeper limestone units are not considered relevant to this investigation; therefore, the deeper limestone units are not discussed in this report.

According to RI 28, Table 2, the Pleistocene and Recent deposits generally consist of fine to medium sand, coquina, and sandy shell marl. The Upper Miocene or Pliocene deposits generally consist of gray to greenish gray sandy shell marl, green clay, fine sand, and silty shell. The Hawthorn Formation, since upgraded to Group status, generally consists of light green to greenish gray sandy marl, streaks of greenish clay, phosphatic clay, black and brown phosphorite, and thin beds of phosphatic sandy limestone.

General Potential For Sinkhole Development Sinkhole development occurs in Florida and varies geographically from areas with almost no potential or a very low potential to areas with a high potential where sinkholes occur frequently.

The subject property is located in Area II as mapped by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) web site. The cover (over limestone bedrock) in Area II is between 30 to 200 feet thick and is predominantly sandy. Sinkholes are few, shallow, and of small diameter and develop gradually in Area II.

A review of Florida Geologic Survey’s on-line Subsidence Incident Reports (SIRs) database reveals the closest reported sinkhole is over 16 miles south of the subject site. It should be noted that the number of sinkholes is based on information reported to the FGS and does not necessarily reflect the number of sinkholes confirmed by public or private industry.

During our limited evaluation, we did not encounter traditional signs associated with potential sinkhole development including loss of drilling fluids, obvious raveled zones, surface depressions, etc. However, this evaluation was not planned to specifically address sinkhole potential. The risk of sinkhole occurrence at most sites is small even in areas known to have a higher than average risk of sinkhole occurrence.

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

3.2 Soil Survey

The Soil Survey of Brevard County, Florida as prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS; later renamed the Natural Resource Conservation Service - NRCS), dated November 1974, identifies the soil type at the subject site as Satellite sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (53). It should be noted that the Soil Survey is not intended as a substitute for site-specific geotechnical exploration; rather it is a useful tool in planning a project scope in that it provides information on soil types likely to be encountered. Boundaries between adjacent soil types on the Soil Survey maps are approximate (included in Appendix as Exhibit A-2).

A description of the mapped soil unit is included in Appendix A as Exhibit A-3.

3.3 Typical Profile

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Stratum Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet)

Material Description Consistency/ Density

1 13½ to at least 15 Sand to sand with silt Medium dense

2 18½ Silty sand to sand with silt Medium dense

3 25 Sand Loose

Conditions encountered at each boring location and results of laboratory testing are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. Descriptions of our field exploration are included as Exhibit A-5 in Appendix A. Descriptions of our laboratory testing procedures are included as Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B. General notes for SPT borings can be found in Exhibit C-1. A more detailed description of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is included as Exhibit C-2 in Appendix C.

3.4 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed during drilling for the presence and level of groundwater.

Groundwater was observed only in Boring B-3, at a depth of 9 feet below existing grade.

Groundwater was not observed in the other boreholes prior to the addition of bentonite drilling slurry (aka “drillers’ mud”) at a depth of 10 feet. While the addition of bentonite drilling slurry permits continued deeper drilling, subsequent groundwater readings are obscured for considerable time thereafter. Longer term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers, possibly

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable installed to greater depths than explored under this project scope, would be required to better define groundwater conditions at the site.

It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the boring was performed. In addition, perched water can develop within higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs.

We estimate that during the normal wet season (typically June through October) with rainfall and recharge at a maximum, groundwater levels will be about 6 feet or more below the existing grade, and will depend on the water level in the adjacent canal. Our estimates of the seasonal groundwater conditions are based on the USDA Soil Survey, available survey data, the encountered soil types, recent weather conditions, and the encountered water levels.

These seasonal water table estimates do not represent the temporary rise in water table that occurs immediately following a storm event, including adjacent to other stormwater management facilities. This is different from static groundwater levels in wet ponds and/or drainage canals which can affect the design water levels of new, nearby ponds. The seasonal high water table may vary from normal when affected by extreme weather changes, localized or regional flooding, karst activity, future grading, drainage improvements, or other construction that may occur on our around the site following the date of this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Borings encountered about 13 to 15 feet of medium dense sand to sand with silt, over medium dense silty sand to sand with silt, over loose sand. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 9 feet in Boring B-3, and groundwater was not identified within the upper 10 feet of Borings B-1 and B-2. Seasonal high groundwater is anticipated to be about 6 feet or more below the existing grade and will depend on the water level in the adjacent canal.

The geotechnical conditions identified in our exploration do not appear to present a cause of the pool volume loss. No voids were identified in the borings conducted around the exterior of the pool.

Although this evaluation was not planned to specifically address sinkhole potential, the geotechnical information identified by our scope of services as well as the referenced public documents suggest active sinkhole conditions are unlikely at this site, and unlikely the cause of the pool volume loss. Although the geotechnical conditions do not appear to present a cause of the pool volume loss, the relatively deep groundwater table coupled with the relatively permeable sand around the pool exterior does present a suitable pathway through which water could drain from the pool if leaks in the pool were present. The relative density of the soils around the pool

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable exterior do not appear to reflect loosening of the soil as would be expected were soil being washed away.

Because the borings were drilled outside the pool, and because the pool is still partially filled with water, we have not observed conditions directly beneath the pool floor slab. If the pool water loss were causing voids beneath the pool floor slab there would likely be at least some cracking in the pool floor slab and possibly some deformation on the PVC pool floor liner depending on the severity of pool floor slab cracking. If the owner requires, Terracon could submit a supplemental proposal to observe the pool floor slab for possible cracking, after the PVC liner has been removed. Further, if the owner would like Terracon to use ground penetrating radar (GPR) to detect voids beneath the pool floor slab, Terracon could also include that service in a supplemental proposal. Unless cracks are observed in the pool floor slab and/or GPR detects voids beneath the pool floor slab, Terracon does not recommend using soil borings conducted through the pool floor slab as a diagnostic method as could lead to more pool water leaking.

If soils were to have washed from beneath the pool floor slab, as concerns have expressed, the washed soil would have been washed to somewhere else. Terracon is not aware of any reports of soil being washed into the pool. The Facility Assessment report issued by Terracon does not identify any reports of extraneous sand washing into the pool filter system or piping. Soil conditions identified by the borings surrounding the pool are not particularly loose, and do not suggest washing away of soils.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET

RANGE:

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBITTOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY MAP

1000090008000

5000 7000

.5

0 2000

.5

KILOMETERS

MILES

FEET

SCALE 1:24 000

7.5 MINUTE SERIES (QUADRANGLE)

N

37 EAST

SW AS SHOWN

ISSUED: 1953

MELBOURNE WEST, FLORIDA

REVISED: 1970

SECTION:

TOWNSHIP:

29 SOUTH

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

1675 LEE ROAD WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789

FAX. (407) 740-6112PH. (407) 740-6110BHW

A-1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION

BSO

BSO

PALM BAY, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

H1195191

H1195191-1

8-12-19

PALM BAY AQUATIC CENTER POOL

420 COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARKWAY SE

FELLSMERE NW, FLORIDA

ISSUED: 1949 REVISED: 1988

N 50004500400030002500 3500200012005000 1000500

SCALE 1" = 1000'

U.S.D.A. WEB SOIL SURVEY FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

FEET

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBITU.S.D.A. SOILS MAP

SW AS SHOWN

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

1675 LEE ROAD WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789

FAX. (407) 740-6112PH. (407) 740-6110BHW

RANGE: 37 EAST

SECTION:

TOWNSHIP:

29 SOUTH

A-2

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION

BSO

BSO

PALM BAY, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

H1195191

H1195191-2

8-12-19

PALM BAY AQUATIC CENTER POOL

420 COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARKWAY SE

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Soil Survey Description

53 – Satellite sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This soil type is nearly level and somewhat poorly drained. It is typically found in broad low ridges in the flatwoods. In its natural state, during years of normal rainfall, this soil type has a seasonal high water table between depths of 10 inches and 40 inches (0.8 feet and 3.3 feet) below the surface for 2 to 6 months. Except for prolonged dry periods, the water table in this soil type is within a depth of 60 inches (5.0 feet). This soil type is predominantly sandy throughout the defined depth of 84 inches (7.0 feet).

August 27, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-5

Field Exploration Description

The boring locations were laid out at the project site by Terracon personnel. The locations indicated on the attached diagram are approximate and were located by handheld GPS equipment to locate borings with a horizontal precision of ±20 feet. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them.

The SPT soil borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rotary drilling rig and a mini rubber track-mounted rig, both equipped with an automatic hammer. The boreholes were advanced with a cutting head and stabilized with the use of bentonite (drillers’ mud). Soil samples were obtained by the split spoon sampling procedure in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure. In the split spoon sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration or the middle 12 inches of a 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The sampling depths and penetration distance, plus the standard penetration resistance values, are shown on the boring logs.

Portions of the samples from the borings were sealed in glass jars to reduce moisture loss, and then the jars were taken to our laboratory for further observation and classification. Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with the site soil.

Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation of the samples.

A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This higher efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.

4-5-8-8 N=13

6-8-10-10 N=18

7-7-8-8 N=15

6-7-6-6 N=13

6-7-7-8 N=14

7-12-10 N=22

2-2-2 N=4

3-3-3 N=6

SAND (SP), fine grained, dark brown, medium dense dark grayish brown

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark brown, medium dense

SAND (SP), fine grained, brown, loose grayish brown

Boring Terminated at 25 Feet

13.5

18.5

25.0

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS

BO

R

IN

G

LO

G

IS

N

O T

VA

LI

D

IF

SE

PA

R

AT

ED

FR

O M

O R

IG

IN

AL

R

EP

O

R T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T

LO

G -N

O W

EL

L

H

PA

LM

BA

Y

AQ

U

AT

IC

.G

PJ

TE

R R

AC

O

N _D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.

G D

T 8/

/1

W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

O

BS

ER

VA

TI

O

N S

D

EP

TH

(F t.)

FI

EL

D

TE

ST

R

ES

U

LT

S

420 Community College Parkway SE Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

rotary wash

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: H1195191

Drill Rig: BR2500 mini track

Boring Started: 08-01-2019

BORING LOG NO. B-1

City of Palm Bay, FloridaCLIENT:

Palm Bay, Florida

Driller: Travis

Boring Completed: 08-01-2019

Exhibit: A-6

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool Assessment & Renovations Consultant Services

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Groundwater not encountered in upper 10 feet

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ES

W

AT

ER

C

O N

TE

N

T

)LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 27.9905° Longitude: -80.6304°

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

DEPTH SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

4-4-6-6 N=10

7-9-11-10 N=20

8-9-10-15 N=19

8-7-7-5 N=14

6-6-6-8 N=12

8-13-15 N=28

2-3-3 N=6

3-3-4 N=7

SAND (SP), fine grained, grayish brown, medium dense sark brown mixed gray and brown

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), fine grained, dark brown, medium dense

SILTY SAND (SM), dark reddish brown, dense

SAND (SP), fine grained, reddish brown, loose grayish brown

Boring Terminated at 25 Feet

8.0

13.5

18.5

25.0

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS

BO

R

IN

G

LO

G

IS

N

O T

VA

LI

D

IF

SE

PA

R

AT

ED

FR

O M

O R

IG

IN

AL

R

EP

O

R T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T

LO

G -N

O W

EL

L

H

PA

LM

BA

Y

AQ

U

AT

IC

.G

PJ

TE

R R

AC

O

N _D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.

G D

T 8/

/1

W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

O

BS

ER

VA

TI

O

N S

D

EP

TH

(F t.)

FI

EL

D

TE

ST

R

ES

U

LT

S

420 Community College Parkway SE Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

rotary wash

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: H1195191

Drill Rig: BR2500 mini track

Boring Started: 08-01-2019

BORING LOG NO. B-2

City of Palm Bay, FloridaCLIENT:

Palm Bay, Florida

Driller: Travis

Boring Completed: 08-01-2019

Exhibit: A-7

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool Assessment & Renovations Consultant Services

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Groundwater not encountered in upper 10 feet

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ES

W

AT

ER

C

O N

TE

N

T

)LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 27.9906° Longitude: -80.6303°

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

DEPTH SA

M

PL

E

3-3-3-3 N=6

3-6-6-7 N=12

5-5-6-6 N=11

4-4-4-6 N=8

4-5-6-6 N=11

12-14-13 N=27

SAND (SP), fine grained, gray, loose to dense light gray grayish brown dark brown dark reddish brown

Boring Terminated at 15 Feet 15.0

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

TH

IS

BO

R

IN

G

LO

G

IS

N

O T

VA

LI

D

IF

SE

PA

R

AT

ED

FR

O M

O R

IG

IN

AL

R

EP

O

R T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T

LO

G -N

O W

EL

L

H

PA

LM

BA

Y

AQ

U

AT

IC

.G

PJ

TE

R R

AC

O

N _D

AT

AT

EM

PL

AT

E.

G D

T 8/

/1

W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

O

BS

ER

VA

TI

O

N S

D

EP

TH

(F t.)

FI

EL

D

TE

ST

R

ES

U

LT

S

420 Community College Parkway SE Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

rotary wash

Abandonment Method:

Notes:

Project No.: H1195191

Drill Rig: CME 45 truck

Boring Started: 07-31-2019

BORING LOG NO. B-3

City of Palm Bay, FloridaCLIENT:

Palm Bay, Florida

Driller: Travis

Boring Completed: 07-31-2019

Exhibit: A-8

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Palm Bay Aquatic Center Pool Assessment & Renovations Consultant Services

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Groundwater encountered at 9 feet

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

PE

R

C

EN

T

FI

N

ES

W

AT

ER

C

O N

TE

N

T

)LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 27.9908° Longitude: -80.6301°

G R

AP

H

IC

LO

G

DEPTH SA

M

PL

E

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

August 274, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1195191

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

During the field exploration, a portion of each recovered sample was sealed in a glass jar and transported to our laboratory for further visual observation and laboratory testing. Selected samples retrieved from the borings were tested for moisture (water) content and fines content (soil passing a US standard #200 sieve). Those results are included in this report and on the respective boring logs. The visual-manual classifications were modified as appropriate based upon the laboratory testing results.

The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the appended General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the material's texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is shown on the boring logs and a brief description of the Unified Soil Classification System is included in Appendix B. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in the Laboratory Test Results section of this report and on the corresponding borings logs.

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

500 to 1,000

2,000 to 4,000

4,000 to 8,000

1,000 to 2,000 less than 500

> 8,000

Unconfined Compressive Strength Qu, (psf)

Non-plastic Low Medium High

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor AnalyzerS A

M P

L

IN

G

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

F

IE

L D

T E

S T

S

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

(PID)

(OVA)

GENERAL NOTES

Over 12 in. (300 mm) 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

Particle Size

< 5 5 - 12 > 12

Percent of Dry Weight

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

1 - 10 11 - 30

> 30

Plasticity Index

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

Percent of Dry Weight

Major Component of Sample

Trace With Modifier

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Trace With Modifier

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

< 15 15 - 29 > 30

Term

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated.

Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations.

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Water Initially Encountered

Auger Cuttings Rock Core

Grab Sample

No Recovery

Shelby Tube

Standard Penetration Test

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.

Hard

Very Stiff

Stiff

Medium Stiff

Very Soft

Automatic Hammer SPT N-Value (Blows/Ft.)

< 3 < 1

1 - 3

3 - 6Medium Dense

SoftLoose

Very Dense

Dense

Very Loose

Automatic Hammer SPT N-Value (Blows/Ft.)

3 - 8

8 - 24

24 - 40

> 40

6 - 12

12 - 24

> 24

S T

R E

N G

T H

T E

R M

S Descriptive Term (Consistency)

Descriptive Term (Density)

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)

Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance (More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)

Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu ³ 4 and 1 £ Cc £ 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu ³ 6 and 1 £ Cc £ 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

< 0.75 OL

Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

< 0.75 OH

Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains ³ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains ³ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI ³ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS