Cape Canaveral National Cemetery Phase 2.pdf

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Cape Canaveral National Cemetery Phase 2

Mims, Brevard County, Florida

March 20, 2019

Terracon Project No. H1185129

Prepared for:

Calibre Engineering

Highland Ranch, Colorado

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Winter Park, Florida

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1675 Lee Road Winter Park, Flor ida 32789

P (407) 740 6110 F (407) 740 6112 terracon.com

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN

Calibre Engineering

9090 S. Ridgeline Boulevard, Suite 105

Highland Ranch, Colorado 80129

Attn: Mr. John Strandberg, P.E., Senior Project Manager

P: (303) 339-5409

E: JStrandberg@calibre-engineering.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Cape Canaveral National Cemetery Phase 2

5525 US-1

Mims, Brevard County, Florida

Terracon Project No. H1185129

Dear Mr. Strandberg:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, and stormwater pond for the proposed Phase 2 portion of the cemetery.

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 No. 8330

Shenna McMaster, P.E. Jay W. Casper, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal

Florida PE #57537

This report has been electronically signed and sealed by Shenna McMaster, P.E. on March 20, 2019 using a Digital Signature.

Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... I

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

FLOOR SLABS

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

PAVEMENT GRADING

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

GENERAL COMMENTS

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/

Cape Canaveral National Cemetery Phase 2 ■ Mims, Brevard County, Florida

March 20, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. H1185129

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

REPORT SUMMARY

Topic Overview Statement

Project Description

Multiple columbarium structures are planned in the eastern and northwestern portion of Phase 2. A stormwater pond is planned in the west-central portion of Phase 2.

Roadways and burial plots are planned throughout Phase 2.

Geotechnical Characterization

Mostly sands with lenses of silty sand. Trace shell fragments at many locations.

Groundwater levels within a few feet of current grades.

Earthwork Normal site preparation anticipated

Shallow Foundations

Shallow foundations will be sufficient

Allowable bearing pressure = 2,000 psf

Expected settlements: < 1-inch total, < 3/4-inch differential

Site preparation as noted in Earthwork.

Pavements

With subgrade prepared as noted in Earthwork.

■ Pavement grades should be set to provide a minimum separation of 12 inches between the bottom of the base course and the seasonal high groundwater level.

■ Typical pavement sections are appropriate

Stormwater A wet stormwater pond is anticipated in the central portion of the site.

General Comments

This section contains important information about the limitations of this geotechnical engineering report.

1. If the reader is reviewing this report as a pdf, the topics above can be used to access the appropriate section of the report by simply clicking on the topic itself.

2. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Cape Canaveral National Cemetery Phase 2

5525 US-1

Mims, Brevard County, Florida Terracon Project No. H1185129

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed Phase 2 of the National Cemetery located at 5525 US-1 in

Mims, Brevard County, Florida. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Pavement design and construction

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Stormwater pond considerations

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of 15 test borings to depths ranging from 15 to 20 feet below existing site grades. During preliminary exploration of the overall cemetery property, 4 borings were performed within the Phase 2 area.

During the field exploration for Phase 1, 4 additional borings were performed within the Phase 2 area. The results of borings performed during previous exploration within the Phase 2 area are included in this report.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs in the

Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The Cape Canaveral National Cemetery is located at 5525 US-1 in Mims, Florida. Phase 2 is in the central portion of the overall cemetery property.

Phase 1 is located immediately south of Phase 2.

See Site Location

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Current Ground

Cover

Mostly pasture lands. However, some mass grading and earthwork has occurred during recent construction of Phase 1.

Existing Topography

The USGS topographic quadrangle map “Oakhill, Florida” the site is relatively flat with ground surface elevations near +15 to +20 feet. The site generally slopes to the east.

Geology

Brevard County is located on the Atlantic coastline of eastern, central peninsular Florida. White

(1970) places Brevard County in the Mid-Peninsular Zone which is “characterized by discontinuous highlands in the form of sub-parallel ridges separated by broad valleys.” According to White (1970), the geomorphology of Brevard County consists of, on the east, the Atlantic

Coastal Ridge and on the west, the Eastern Valley. Ten Mile Ridge is a discontinuous ridge trending northwest-southeast through the southeastern portion of the county. The project site is located along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge.

Near surface subsoil conditions consist of unconsolidated, quartz sands containing beds of coquina of Pleistocene and Recent Age. The thickness of this deposit ranges from less than

20 feet in the western portion of the county to more than 100 feet in the coastal ridge area. At this project site, the surficial deposits are about 50 feet in thickness. This upper, mostly sandy zone contains the surficial (water table) aquifer.

Below the surficial deposits are the upper Late Miocene or Pliocene Age deposits of fine sand, shells, clay and calcareous clay. A Miocene age deposit, the Hawthorn Group, frequently underlies the surficial sand and is typically composed of beds of sandy clays, shells, and clays with appreciable amounts of phosphates. This relatively impermeable formation ranges in thickness from about 10 feet in the northern portion of the county to about 220 feet in the southern portion of the county and serves as the confining layer for the underlying Floridan aquifer. The

Floridan aquifer, composed of Eocene age Ocala and Avon Park Limestones, underlies the

Hawthorn Group.

General Potential for Sinkhole Development

The USGS has prepared a map which identifies areas of sinkhole occurrence in Florida. This map, the Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida map (prepared by the USGS, in cooperation with state agencies, 1985), divides Florida into four areas based on the type and thickness of cover overlying soluble rock. These areas, designated I through IV, have varying potentials for sinkhole development as follows:

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Area I – Sinkholes are few.

Area II – Sinkholes are few.

Area III – Sinkholes are numerous.

Area IV – Sinkholes are very few.

Review of the map listed above indicates the site is within Area II.

Area II typically has a cover of 30 to 100 feet over the limestone. Generally, the cover material is mostly non-cohesive and permeable sands. Sinkholes are generally few in number in Area II, and are generally shallow, of small diameter, and develop gradually. The most common type of sinkhole is a cover-subsidence sinkhole. Cover-subsidence sinkholes occur as overlying soil particles gradually erode into voids within the limestone, causing subsidence of the ground surface over time.

Certain potential sinkhole indicators, such as loss of circulation of drilling fluid, particularly loose/soft soils, and breaches in or the absence of a confining layer, were not encountered. The borings did not extend deep enough to encounter limestone. Therefore, we do not have sufficient/complete information with which to judge whether this particular site is at the same or a different level of risk of sinkhole development as compared to the surrounding areas. However, the site is located within an area generally considered to have very low risk sinkhole occurrence.

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), identifies the pre-development soil types at the subject site as:

■ Copeland-Bradenton-Wabasso complex, limestone substratum (16)

■ Riviera sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (19)

■ Myakka sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (36)

■ Pompano sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (51)

■ Wabasso sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (71).

Soils on the site may have been altered by previous mass-grading operations. A Soils Map is included with this GeoReport, depicting the applicable Soil Survey map portion for the subject site.

16 – Copeland-Bradenton-Wabasso, limestone substratum. This soil complex consists of several nearly level and very poorly drained. It is typically found on low flats. This soil complex has a seasonal high groundwater table within a depth of 10 inches (0.8 feet) for more than 6 months.

In dry seasons the water table is between depths of 10 and 30 inches (0.8 to 2.5 feet). This soil complex is flooded for 7 days to 1 month once in 5 to 20 years. This soil type exists as clayey sand (USCS Classification symbol SM) to a typical depth of 15 inches (1.3 feet). Thereafter, to a

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 typical depth of 22 inches (1.8 feet), this soil type exists as clayey sand (USCS Classification symbol SC). Thereafter, to a typical depth of about 30 inches, this soil type exists as marl, underlain by hard limestone or coquina rock. Typical permeability rates for this soil type are generally between 6 and 20 inches per hour (12 and 40 feet per day) to a typical depth of 15 inches. Thereafter, typical permeability rates for this soil type are generally between 0.6 and 2 inches per hour (1.2 and 4 feet per day) to a typical depth of 22 inches.

19 – Riviera fine sand. This soil type is nearly level and poorly drained. It is typically found on flats on marine terraces. During years of normal precipitation, this soil type has a seasonal high water table at 3 to 18 inches below the surface. This soil type is predominantly sandy to a typical depth of 28 inches. Thereafter, to a typical depth of 80 inches, this soil type exists as sandy loam and sandy clay loam.

36 – Myakka sand. This soil type is nearly level and poorly drained. It is typically found in broad areas in the flatwoods and in areas between sand ridges and sloughs and ponds. In its natural state, during years of normal rainfall, this soil type has a seasonal high water table within 10 inches (0.8 feet) of the surface for 1 to 4 months, receding to a depth of between 10 and 40 inches

(0.8 and 3.3 feet) for more than 6 months, and deeper during dry seasons. This soil type is flooded for up to a week every 1 to 5 years. This soil type is predominantly sandy throughout the defined depth of 63 inches (5.3 feet). Typical permeability rates for Myakka sand are between 6 and 20 inches per hour (12 and 40 feet per day) between the ground surface and a typical depth of 22 inches (1.8 feet), between 0.6 and 2 inches per hour (1.2 and 4 feet per day) between typical depths of 22 and 46 inches (1.8 and 3.8 feet), and between 6 and 20 inches per hour between a typical depth of 46 inches and the maximum defined depth of 63 inches.

51 – Pompano sand. This soil type is nearly level and poorly drained. It is typically found on broad flats. During years of normal precipitation, this soil type has a seasonal high water table within 10 inches (0.8 feet) of the surface for 2 to 6 months. The water table recedes to between depths of 10 and 40 inches (0.8 and 3.3 feet) for 6 months or more. Following heavy rains, the water table occasionally rises above the surface for 2 to 7 days. This soil type is predominantly sand throughout the defined profile. Typical permeability rates for Pompano fine sand are generally greater than 20 inches per hour (40 feet per day) throughout the defined profile of 120 inches (10.0 feet).

71 – Wabasso sand. This soil type is nearly level and poorly drained. It is typically found in the flatwoods and on low ridges in the floodplains. During years of normal precipitation, this soil type has a seasonal high water table within 10 inches (0.8 feet) of the surface for 1 or 2 months and within 30 inches (2.5 feet) for most of the time. Wabasso sand is generally predominantly sandy to a typical depth of 34 inches (2.8 feet). Thereafter to the maximum defined depth of 65 inches

(5.4 feet), EauGallie sand exists as silty sand to clayey sand (USCS Classification symbol SM to

SC).

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided Conceptual site plan with requested boring locations provided by you

Project Description

Multiple columbarium structures are planned in the eastern and northwestern portion of Phase 2. A stormwater pond is planned in the west-central portion of Phase 2. Roadways and burial plots are planned throughout Phase 2.

Grading/Slopes Fill – up to 2 feet of fill is anticipated.

Cuts – not anticipated, except for construction of stormwater ponds.

Pavements Roadways throughout Phase 2 are anticipated

Stormwater Management A new stormwater pond is planned on the west-central portion of Phase

2. A stormwater pond constructed during Phase 1 is located on the eastern portion of Phase 2.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

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

Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet)

Material Description Consistency/

Density

Deepest boring depth of 20 feet

Mostly sand (SP) and sand with silt (SP-SM), with occasional lenses of silty sand (SM)1,2

Loose to Medium dense3

1. Silty sand was found in several borings performed in the southern portion of the site at a depth of about 2 feet below existing grade.

2. Trace shell fragments were found in several borings at depths of 4 feet or more below existing grade.

Cemented sand zones were also noted at a few locations.

3. Dense sand was observed in Borings C-7 and C-11 at depths of 13 feet or more below existing grade.

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. The in-situ the transition between materials may be gradual.

Details for each of the borings performed within Phase 2 during the recent and previous explorations can be found on the boring logs in the Exploration Results section of this report.

Descriptions of our field exploration and laboratory testing procedures are included in the

Exploration and Testing Procedures section of this report.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Groundwater Conditions

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

Groundwater was observed in the recent and previously performed borings, between depths of

2-1/2 and 6 feet below existing grade. Groundwater levels were not observed in some of the shallower borings performed to depths of 5 feet below existing grade during the previous exploration.

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.

Based on the USDA Soil Survey, naturally occurring seasonal high groundwater levels are expected to be within 1 foot of existing grade for most of the site. However, due to the relatively high permeability near surface soils observed and the presence of the drainage ditches throughout the site, normal seasonal high groundwater levels within the site in its current condition are expected to vary from about 1 foot to about 2 feet below existing grade.

The water levels observed in the borings performed within Phase 2 can be found on the boring logs in Exploration Results, and are summarized below along with the estimated normal seasonal high groundwater table.

Boring

Number

Ground

Surface

Elevation

(el. ft)

Approximate depth to water table during drilling (feet)

Elevation of

Observed

Groundwater

Table

(el. ft.)

Approximate elevation of estimated normal seasonal high groundwater table

(el. ft)

C-1 +15.5 4.9 +10.6 +12.5

C-2 +12.9 4.8 +8.1 +11.5

C-3 +11.3 4.2 +7.1 +9.5

C-4 +11.5 4.3 +7.2 +9.5

C-5 +10.0 4.1 +5.9 +8

C-6 +11.9 2.7 +9.2 +10.5

C-7 +13.0 3.7 +9.3 +12

C-8 +14.4 4.2 +10.2 +13

C-9 +16.1 4.3 +11.8 +14

C-10 +16.6 6.1 +10.5 +14

C-11 +17.4 3 +14.4 +16

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Boring

Number

Ground

Surface

Elevation

(el. ft)

Approximate depth to water table during drilling (feet)

Elevation of

Observed

Groundwater

Table

(el. ft.)

Approximate elevation of estimated normal seasonal high groundwater table

(el. ft)

C-12 +16.7 3 +13.7 +16

C-13 +17.0 3.5 +13.5 +16

C-14 +17.1 4 +13.1 +15.5

C-15 +12.6 3.1 +9.5 +11.5

B-7 3 4.5 3

B-10 3 5 3

B-14 3 4 3

1.5

B-15 3

1.5

D-33 3 >5 3

D-34 3

D-35 3

D-36 3

1. Measured and provided by the project surveyor.

2. Below ground surface at time the borings were performed. Grades may have been modified at B- and D- series borings since borings were performed prior to Phase 1 construction.

3. Ground surface elevations were not provided for borings performed during previous explorations. Estimated normal seasonal high groundwater levels presented as depth below existing grade at the time of the explorations

Estimates of the normal seasonal high water table presented in this report are based on and limited by the data collected during our geotechnical exploration, and the referenced published documents. Estimates of the normal seasonal high assume normal precipitation volumes and distribution. The observed high water table in any particular year will vary depending upon whether that year is a “wet” year, a “dry” year, or a “normal” year. 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. The normal seasonal high water table will be affected by any extreme weather changes, localized or regional flooding, karst activity, future grading, drainage improvements, or other construction that may occur on or around the site following the date of this report.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Based on the results of the recent and previous subsurface explorations, it appears the site is suitable for the proposed development as a cemetery. The following is a summary of geotechnical engineering evaluations and considerations:

■ Soil conditions observed consisted of mostly sands with inclusions of various amounts of silt and shell. Groundwater was found at depths of 2-1/2 to 6 feet below existing grade throughout the site. Normal seasonal high groundwater levels are generally expected to vary from about 1 to 2 feet below existing grade throughout the site.

■ Difficult excavations may be experienced due to relatively shallow dense layers observed.

This generally occurs in thin layers. We expect that it can normally be broken up by conventional excavation equipment, but in rare cases may require specialized equipment.

■ Small, lightly loaded structures can be supported on conventional shallow foundations, following adequate site preparation. Based on the borings performed, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf is feasible with a minimum bearing depth of 18 inches.

■ The site appears suitable for support of conventional concrete and asphalt pavements.

Stabilizing material will likely be necessary for the construction of pavement subgrades.

■ Due to relatively high groundwater levels at the site, the use of a normally wet detention pond appears most feasible for treatment of stormwater runoff. Shallow dry retention swales may be feasible if constructed in well-draining materials and elevated sufficiently above wet season groundwater levels.

■ Temporary dewatering may be required for construction of the stormwater pond and other excavations during development of the site. In addition, depending on proposed final grades and groundwater levels at the time of construction, dewatering may be required for preparation of foundation bearing soils.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork is anticipated to include clearing and grubbing, excavations, and fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations, floor slabs, and pavements.

Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill, all vegetation, topsoil, and any otherwise unsuitable material should be removed from the construction areas. Wet or dry material should either be removed or moisture conditioned and re-compacted. Once stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be observed and proofrolled with a medium or heavy weight roller (minimum 10,000 pounds static weight). If existing nearby structures or the prevailing groundwater table are a concern, proofrolling should be performed in static mode. Proofrolling aids in providing a firm base for compaction of new fill and delineating soft or disturbed areas that may exist at or near the exposed subgrade level, as well overall densification of the upper loose sands. Proofrolling should be performed in the presence of a Terracon representative in order to aid in evaluating unstable subgrade areas. Unstable areas observed at this time should be improved as recommended by the engineer based on field conditions and typically includes scarification and recompaction or by undercutting and replacement with suitable compacted fill.

Where fill is placed on existing slopes, we recommend that fill slopes be over filled and then cut back to develop an adequately compacted slope face. Slopes should be provided with appropriate erosion protection.

Fill Material Types

Fill required to achieve design grade should be classified as structural fill and general fill.

Structural fill is material used below or within 10 feet of structures, pavements or constructed slopes. General fill is material used to achieve grade outside of these areas. Earthen materials used for structural and general fill should meet the following material property requirements:\

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Soil

Quality

USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Maximum Lift

Thickness

(in.)

Preferred

SP

(fines content < 5%) All locations and elevations 12

SP-SM

(fines content between

5 and 12%)

All locations and elevations other than beneath concrete pavements or where superior drainage is required. Strict moisture control will be required during placement, particularly during the rainy season.

8 to 12

Limited SM, SC

(fines content >12%)

Limited to mass fill greater than 2 feet below final grade; strict moisture control will be required during placement.

6 to 8

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris.

2. If fines contents are greater than 12 percent, special design and construction procedures may be necessary.

3. Loose thickness when heavy compaction equipment is used in vibratory mode. Lift thickness should be decreased if static compaction is being used, typically to no more than 8 inches, and the required compaction must still be achieved. Use 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e.

jumping jack or plate compactor) is required.

4. Static equipment should be used.

Generally, soils observed in the borings were mostly sand (SP) and sand with silt (SP-SM) which meet the above criteria for “preferred” fill. Lenses of silty sand (SM) were observed in some borings. Based on visual examination and limited laboratory testing of the recovered soil samples, the various materials may be used as follows:

■ Fine sand (SP) and slightly silty fine sand (SP-SM) with occasional trace shell fragments.

It is considered a “preferred” fill material. These materials should be suitable for unrestricted use as fill. These soils are suitable for use as roadway subgrade; although stabilization may be required. These are the predominant soil type present on the site.

■ Silty fine sand (SM), with occasional trace shell, is also suitable for structural fill, but tends to retain moisture and requires more handling to dry, place and compact. Thinner lifts (8 to 12 inches loose thickness) may be required for placement and compaction of these soils. Due to the relatively high moisture content of these soils, it may be necessary to mix these soils with drier, cleaner granular soils prior to placement to increase the workability of these soils. Use of this soil for roadway subgrade is not recommended. This can be considered a “limited” fill material.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

Fill Compaction Requirements

Structural and general fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Structural Fill

Fill Lift Thickness

12 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy compaction equipment is used in vibratory mode. Lift thickness should be decreased if static compaction is being used, typically to no more than 8 inches, and the required compaction must still be achieved.

4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e.

jumping jack or plate compactor) is used.

Minimum Compaction

Requirements 1

95 percent of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density

(ASTM D 1557).

Moisture Content

Within ±2 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by the Modified Proctor test, at the time of placement and compaction.

Minimum Testing Frequency

One field density test per 5,000 square feet or fraction thereof per 1-foot lift.

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement.

Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the cohesionless fill material pumping when proofrolled.

Utility Trench Backfill

All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction including backfill placement and compaction. Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that penetrate beneath the building should be backfilled with native soils to avoid creating a preferred flow path through the trenches.

Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the structures during and after construction

Final surrounding grades should be sloped away from the structure on all sides to prevent ponding of water. Roof drains, scuppers, downspouts, or other appropriate methods that direct water a minimum of 10 feet beyond the footprint of the proposed structures are recommended. Site grades should be set considering the estimated seasonal high groundwater presented in

Geotechnical Characterization.

Where paving or flatwork abuts the structures, a maintenance program should be established to effectively seal and maintain joints and prevent surface water infiltration.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

A drainage system below the crypt areas is recommended where the base of crypts may be below normal seasonal high groundwater levels, due to the relatively shallow groundwater conditions on the site. Use of a gravel blanket and perforated drainage pipe, with a positive outfall, is recommended below the crypt areas to keep shallow groundwater levels out of the crypts.

Terracon would be pleased to evaluate the proposed crypt underdrain system as grading plans become available.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

After initial proofrolling and compaction, unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and re-compacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction.

Trees or other vegetation whose root systems have the ability to excessively remove moisture or that may displace the foundations or flatwork should not be planted next to the structures

(foundations, pavements, sidewalks, etc.).

As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational

Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually 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. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and

Trench Safety Standards.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Terracon Geotechnical

Engineer. Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and topsoil, proofrolling, and mitigation of areas delineated by the proofroll to require mitigation.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, until approved by the Terracon Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content at a frequency of at least one test for every 2,500 square feet of compacted fill in the building areas and 5,000 square feet in pavement areas. One density and water content test should be performed for every 50 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill.

In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction of the Terracon Geotechnical Engineer. If unanticipated conditions are encountered, the Terracon

Geotechnical Engineer should prescribe mitigation options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Terracon Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Description Column Footing Wall Footing Monolithic Slab

Foundation

Net allowable bearing pressure 1 2,000 psf 2,000 psf 2,000 psf

Minimum width 30 inches 18 inches 12 inches

Minimum embedment below finished grade

18 inches 18 inches 12 inches

Compaction requirements 95 percent of the materials maximum Modified Proctor dry density for a depth of 12 inches below footing.

Minimum Testing Frequency

One field density test per footing for a minimum depth of 1 foot below the footing subgrade.

One field density test per 50 linear feet for a minimum depth of

1 foot below the footing subgrade.

One field density test per 50 linear feet for a minimum depth of 1 foot below the footing subgrade.

Approximate total settlement

<1 inch <1 inch <1 inch

Estimated differential settlement

<¾ inch between columns

<¾ inch over 40 feet <¾ inch over 40 feet

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

Description Column Footing Wall Footing Monolithic Slab

Foundation

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unsuitable fill or soft soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with engineered fill.

2. For erosion protection and to reduce effects of seasonal moisture variations in subgrade soils.

3. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations. The above settlement estimates have assumed that the maximum footing width is 8 feet for column footings and 2 feet for continuous footings.

4. Turned-down portion of slab. For slab requirements see Floor Slabs

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated under the direction of the

Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating and compaction/verification of subgrade density to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or on with engineered fill placed, as recommended in the Earthwork section in the excavations. This is illustrated on the sketch below.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15

FLOOR SLABS

Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Floor Slab Support Free draining granular material meeting the preferred fill specification 1

Estimated Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction

100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads

1. We recommend subgrades be maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed or the materials scarified, moistened, and recompacted. Upon completion of grading operations in the building areas, care should be taken to maintain the recommended subgrade moisture content and density prior to construction of the building floor slabs.

2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade covered with wood, tile, carpet, or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

Saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or cracks should be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments.

Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn-down slabs to meet structural or other construction objectives, our experience indicates differential movement between the walls and slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or floor slab cracks beyond the length of the structural dowels. The Structural Engineer should account for potential differential settlement through use of sufficient control joints, appropriate reinforcing or other means.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

Finished subgrade, within and for at least 10 feet beyond the floor slab, should be protected from traffic, rutting, or other disturbance and maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become damaged or desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed, and structural fill should be added to replace the resulting excavation, or the soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned and recompacted. Final

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16 conditioning and testing of the finished subgrade should be performed immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course.

The Geotechnical Engineer should approve the condition of the floor slab subgrades immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course, reinforcing steel, and concrete. Attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier, and to areas where backfilled trenches are located.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement, such as a basement wall that is structurally confined at both the top and bottom of the wall. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

Earth Pressure Coefficients

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 17

Earth Pressure Conditions

Coefficient for Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)

Surcharge Pressure, p1 (psf)

Earth Pressure, p2 (psf)

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.33 40 (0.33)S (40)H

At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.46 55 (0.46)S (55)H

Passive (Kp) Granular - 3.0 360 --- ---

Applicable conditions to the above include:

◼ Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure.

◼ In-situ soil backfill weight a maximum of 120 pcf.

◼ Horizontal backfill, compacted between 95 and 98 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density.

◼ Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included.

◼ No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall.

◼ No dynamic loading.

◼ No safety factor included in soil parameters.

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils. For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from the base of the wall at an angle of at least

45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, a value of 0.32 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil.

To control hydrostatic pressure behind the wall we recommend that a drain be installed at the foundation wall with a collection pipe leading to a reliable discharge. If this is not possible, then combined hydrostatic and lateral earth pressures should be calculated for granular backfill using an equivalent fluid weighing 85 and 90 pcf for active and at-rest, respectively. These pressures do not include the influence of surcharge, equipment or floor loading, which should be added. Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided

PAVEMENT GRADING

Terracon anticipates that recommendations for both Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements and asphalt concrete sections will be required. Following are recommendations for both PCC pavement and asphalt concrete pavement sections for a 20-year pavement design period. The design period is considered to be the interval over which, with proper maintenance, the pavement

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 18 will not require major repairs. A continuing regular maintenance program should be implemented to maintain satisfactory serviceability over the design life. The maintenance program should include sealing cracks and repairing minor deficiencies before they become major problems. The following sections present our recommendations for both rigid (concrete) pavement sections and flexible

(asphalt) pavement sections.

Where dense lenses (limestone, coquina, hardpan) are observed within the pavement subgrade, over-excavation and pulverization or replacement may be required. Dense lenses should be over-excavated to a minimum of 2 feet below the pavement base or bottom of the concrete pavement and replaced with structural fill in accordance with the Fill Placement section of this report.

Design Considerations

We anticipate that traffic loads will be produced primarily by automobile traffic and occasional heavier trucks. The thickness of pavements subjected to heavy truck traffic should be determined using expected traffic volumes, vehicle types, and vehicle loads and should be in accordance with local, city, or county ordinances.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:

◼ Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum 2%;

◼ The subgrade and pavement surface should have a minimum 2% slope to promote surface drainage.

◼ Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting.

◼ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately.

◼ Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils.

◼ Place compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter.

◼ Place curb, gutter and/or sidewalk directly on stabilized subgrade soils rather than on unbound granular base course materials.

The following minimum thicknesses were estimated based upon our estimated traffic loading, limited soils information, variation across the project area, and experience with similar projects and soil conditions.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 19

Asphalt Concrete Design Considerations

Minimum Recommended ACC Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Traffic Area Asphalt Surface Base Course Stabilized Subgrade 1

Total Thickness

Light Duty (Automobile Parking)

1.5 6.0 12.0 19.5

Heavy Duty (Drive Lanes/

Entrances/Exits)

2.5 8.0 12.0 22.5

1. Also known at Stabilized Subbase.

The following items are applicable to asphalt concrete pavement sections.

■ The upper 1 foot of pavement subgrade soils (also identified as stabilized subbase) should be stabilized to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR; Florida Method of Test

Designation FM 5-515) value of 40 if they do not already meet this criterion, or replaced with new compacted fill that meets the minimum LBR value. This LBR criterion measures the “quality” of the soils. Although LBR testing has not been performed, our experience with similar soils indicates that the near surficial sands encountered in the soil borings are unlikely to meet this requirement.

■ The stabilized subgrade course should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified

Proctor maximum dry density (AASHTO T-180). Any underlying, newly-placed subgrade fill need only be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

■ The subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum ¼ inch per foot slope to promote effective surface drainage.

■ Adequate separation should be provided between the bottom of the base course and the seasonal high water table. Terracon recommends a minimum separation of 12 inches for this purpose. If this separation cannot be maintained, underdrains may be required.

■ The base course may be limerock, soil cement, or crushed concrete. It should be noted that soil cement base courses typically experience shrinkage cracking due to hydration curing of the cement. This shrinkage cracking typically propagates through the overlying

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 20 asphalt course and reflects in the pavement surface. This reflective cracking is not necessarily indicative of a pavement structural failure, though it is sometimes considered to be aesthetically undesirable, particularly on roads that do not receive regular and significant traffic. Regular pavement maintenance should be employed such that this sort of cracking does not exacerbate into greater pavement degradation.

■ Limerock base courses should be mined from a Florida Department of Transportation

(FDOT) approved source, should have a minimum LBR value of 100, and be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified

Proctor test. Limerock should be placed in uniform lifts not to exceed 6 inches loose thickness.

■ Soil cement bases should have 7-day design strength of 300 psi. Soil cement base should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor Test for Soil Cement (AASHTO T-134). Higher design strengths may result in increased cracking.

■ Crushed (recycled) concrete base should meet the current FDOT specification 911 for recycled materials.

■ Asphalt should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the design mix density.

Asphalt surface courses should be Type SP, Type S, or other suitable mix design according to FDOT and local requirements.

■ To verify thicknesses, after placement and compaction of the pavement courses, core the wearing surface to evaluate material thickness and composition at a minimum frequency of 3,000 square feet or two locations per day’s production.

■ All curbing should be full depth. Use of extruded curb sections which lie on top of asphalt surface courses can allow migration of water between the surface and base courses, leading to rippling and pavement deterioration.

■ Underdrains or strip drains should be considered along all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils. Underdrains will also be required below pavement if the separation between the bottom of the base course and the seasonal high groundwater table is less than 1 foot.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 21

Portland Cement Concrete Design Considerations

Minimum Recommended PCC Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Traffic Area Portland Cement

Concrete Granular Base 1 Total Thickness

Light Duty (Automobile Parking)

5.0 12.0 17.0

Heavy Duty (Drive Lanes/

Entrances/Exits)

6.0 12.0 18.0

Dumpster Pad 2 7.0 12.0 19.0

1. At least one foot of free-draining material should be included directly beneath rigid concrete pavement.

Fill meeting the preferred fill requirements of this report may be considered free-draining for this purpose.

Limerock should not…