GEO_James_Haley_Veterans_Hospital_Heliport_-_AES.PDF

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital Heliport 13000 Bruce B Downs Blvd

Tampa, Florida

UES Project No. 0830.2200112

PREPARED FOR:

Atlantic Engineering Services 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B Suite 201

Jacksonville, FL 32211

PREPARED BY:

Universal Engineering Sciences 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619

(813) 740-8506

September 9, 2022

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

St. Augustine • Panama City • Fort Pierce • Leesburg • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA

UNIVERSAL

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

9802 Palm River Rd. * Tampa, Florida 33619 * Tel (813) 740-8506 * Fax (813) 740-8706 www.UniversalEngineering.com

LOCATIONS:

Atlanta Daytona Beach Fort Myers Fort Pierce Gainesville Jacksonville Miami Ocala Orlando (Headquarters) Palm Coast Panama City Pensacola Rockledge Sarasota St. Petersburg Tampa Tifton West Palm Beach

Atlantic Engineering Services 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B Suite 201 Jacksonville, FL 32211

Attention: James Kostage, P.E.

Reference: Geotechnical Exploration James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital Heliport 13000 Bruce B Downs Blvd Tampa, Florida UES Project No. 0830.2200112 UES Report No. 1977195

Dear Mr. Kostage:

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC (UES) has completed a geotechnical exploration on the above-referenced site in Tampa, Florida. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal #0830.0722.00017, dated July 18, 2022, and authorized by you on July 25, 2022.

This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, geotechnical design recommendations, and general construction and site preparation considerations.

We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.

Respectfully submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, LLC

Certificate of Authorization No. 549

Maritza Guzman Staff Engineer

Veronica De Freitas, P.E.

Department Manager Professional Engineer No. 84939 Date:

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES

2.1 PURPOSE

2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY

3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 GROUNDWATER

4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB

4.3.1 GENERAL

4.3.2 BEARING CAPACITY

4.3.3 BEARING MATERIAL

4.3.4 FOOTING SIZE AND BEARING DEPTH

4.3.5 STANDARD FLOOR SLAB

4.3.6 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE CONTROL

4.3.7 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT

4.3.8 DESIGN CONSIDERATION – EXCAVATION NEAR EXISTING BUILDINGS

4.4 FILL SOIL SUITABILITY

4.5 BELOW GRADE WALL

4.6 SITE PREPARATION

4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

5.0 LIMITATIONS

LIST OF APPENDICES

SITE LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................. A SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ...................................................................................................... A SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP .......................................................................................................... A SOIL SURVEY MAP ..................................................................................................................... A ZONE OF INFLUENCE DIAGRAM ............................................................................................... A

BORING LOCATION PLAN .......................................................................................................... B BORING LOGS ............................................................................................................................. B SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART .................................................................................................. B

GBA IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION ................................................................ C CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS ....................................................................................... C

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) has completed a geotechnical evaluation of the site of the proposed James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital Heliport, located at 13000 Bruce B Downs Boulevard in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and our recommendations for geotechnical design and general site preparation. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal #0830.0722.00017, dated July 18, 2022 and authorized by you.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand that the proposed project consists of a small expansion near the center of the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital campus. To aid in planning our exploration, we were provided with copies of the existing Foundation Plans and Detail, dated July 20, 1972 and the proposed Foundation and Ground Floor Plan, prepared by TTV Architects, Inc. and dated May 25, 2018.

We understand that the proposed development will be supported on shallow foundations, with no greater than 100 kips column loads, 5 kips per linear foot wall load, and 150 psf slab load.

We have assumed that construction will proceed on existing grade.

Our geotechnical recommendations are based upon the above assumptions and considerations.

If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, please inform UES so that we may review our recommendations, and make revisions as needed.

A general location map of the project area appears in Appendix A: Site Location Map. Also included in Appendix A for your reference are a Site Aerial Photograph, USGS Site Topographic Map and Soil Survey Map.

2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES

2.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of our services was:

• to explore the general subsurface conditions at the site using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring;

• to interpret and review the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed construction as it was described to us; and

• to provide geotechnical engineering design information and recommendations, and general recommendations for site preparation.

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 2

This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards.

Our study was confined to the zone of soil likely to be influenced by the proposed structural foundation and pavement systems. Our scope of services did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity.

2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface conditions within the proposed expansion footprint were explored with one (1) boring, extended to a depth of 20 feet below existing grade. This boring was advanced using the rotary wash method, and samples were collected while performing the SPT at regular intervals.

We performed the SPT test in general accordance with ASTM D1586. However, at depths of 10 feet or less we sampled continuously in order to detect slight variations in the soil profile. In general, a standard split-barrel sampler (split-spoon) is driven into the soil using a 140-pound hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after first seating it 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N value. This value is used as an index to soil strength and consistency. The top 4 feet of the SPT boring were advanced using a hand auger. This technique is a part of our safety procedure due to proximity of underground utility lines that may not have been located by Sunshine 811 as requested.

Consider the indicated location and depth to be approximate. Our drilling crew located the boring based upon estimated distances and taped measurements from existing site features or GPS Coordinates using a hand held GPS device. If more precise location and elevation data are desired, a registered professional land surveyor should be retained to locate the borings and determine their ground surface elevations. The Boring Location Plan is presented in Appendix B.

Unless other arrangements are agreed upon in writing, UES will store recovered soil samples for no more than 60 calendar days from the date of the report. After that date, UES will dispose of all samples.

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified by our technical staff. In order to further classify the soils at the site, we selected representative samples from our soil borings for laboratory analyses. In all, we performed the following tests:

• Two (2) Moisture Content tests.

• Two (2) Wash 200 Analyses.

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 3

The laboratory test results are presented on the Boring Logs in Appendix B, next to the soil samples tested.

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS

UES reviewed readily available aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps, and the United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Soil Survey of Hillsborough County for relevant information about the site. According to USGS topographic information, the elevation across the property is on the order of +45 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The site is near the center of the James A. Haley Veteran’s Hospital campus, and is adjacent to a temporary building that is scheduled for demolition.

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY

According to SCS, there is one native, surficial soil group underlying this site. A summary of selected properties for the identified soil group on the site is included below in Table 1. The location of this group can be observed on the SCS Soil Survey Map provided in Appendix A.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF SOIL INFORMATION

Soil Map Unit & Name

Hydrologic Soil Group

Water Table Type

SHWT

Depth

Shrink- Swell

Potential

Corrosion Risk

Steel Concrete

61-Zolfo fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

A Apparent 18” to 42” Low Low Moderate

However, based on our visual classification of onsite soils the subject property was altered and some soils were identified as fill as part of the past site development, and the current soil group can be considered “Urban Land”.

3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS

The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix B: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Refer to Appendix B: Soils Classification Chart, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. The general subsurface soil profile on the site, based on the soil boring information, is described below. For more detailed information, please refer to the boring logs.

Boring B-1 generally consisted of surficial layer consisting concrete slab overlaying up to two feet of fill consisting of poorly graded sand with shell fragments. Below the fill soils, the subsurface conditions consisted of a layer of clayey sand (SC) followed by poorly graded sand

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 4

(SP) approximately 16 feet below site grade. Below these sandy soils, sandy clays (CL) with cement clay were encountered to the boring’s termination depth of 20 feet.

Sandy soils were typically classified as very loose to medium dense. Cohesive soils were typically characterized as stiff.

The water table was encountered at approximately 9 feet below existing grade, measured upon first encounter. These readings were unstabilized and are subject to fluctuation.

The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels and the presence of deleterious materials, at other locations on the site may differ significantly from conditions which, in the opinion of UES, exist at the sampling locations.

Note, too, that the passage of time may affect conditions at the sampling locations.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

In this section of the report, we present our geotechnical design recommendations, general site preparation recommendations and information pertaining to the construction related services UES can provide. Our recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction as it was described to us, and our stated assumptions. If the structural loads or site layout differ from those assumed or described to us, we should be retained to review the new or updated information and amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction that were not encountered in the test borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations.

4.2 GROUNDWATER

Based upon our visual inspection of the recovered soil samples, review of information obtained from Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, and our knowledge of local and regional hydrogeology, our best estimate is that the seasonal high groundwater table (SHWT) is estimated to be 7 feet below the existing grade at the test boring locations or one foot above the clayey sand (SC) layer, whichever is shallower. It should be noted that clayey sands were encountered at approximately 2 feet below grade. These soils are hydraulically restrictive and may cause perched groundwater conditions, as such if these soils are not undercut, the SHWT should be established one foot above the SC layer.

It should be noted that the estimated SHWT does not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed this level in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration exceed the normally anticipated amounts, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimate. Also, future development around the site could alter surface runoff and drainage characteristics, and cause our seasonal high estimate to be exceeded. We therefore recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site during construction. Further, we recommend permanent

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 5 measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. Finally, we recommend all foundation and pavement grades account for the seasonal high groundwater conditions.

Temporary dewatering may be required for some parts of this site if construction proceeds during the wet season, particularly if deep excavations are necessary or if pumping of the surficial materials is experienced during earthworking operations. Where they were encountered, sands with silts (SP-SM), silty fine sands (SM), and clayey sands (SC) near the surface may be prone to pumping in response to normal construction vehicular traffic and earthworking operations. Therefore, we recommend that the contract documents provide for determining the depth to the groundwater table just prior to construction, and for any required remedial dewatering. Further, we recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 24 inches below all earthwork and compaction surfaces.

4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB

4.3.1 GENERAL

The soil encountered at foundation and slab elevations are considered suitable to support the proposed structures and loading, provided subgrades are prepared as recommended.

However, if the actual building loads will exceed those we have previously stated, our foundation recommendations presented herein may not be applicable, and UES should be retained to review the updated information and revise our recommendations as needed.

4.3.2 BEARING CAPACITY

Provided the surficial soils to a depth of 2 feet are densified to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (MPMDD) per ASTM D-1557 prior to foundation construction, UES recommends supporting the proposed structures using shallow strip or spread foundations, or a thickened edge monolithic slab, sized to exert a maximum soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

4.3.3 BEARING MATERIAL

Bearing level soils must be suitable structural fill or existing, granular soils compacted to at least 95% MPMDD. This degree of compaction must be verified to a depth of 2 feet below the base of footing elevation immediately prior to placing foundation concrete.

4.3.4 FOOTING SIZE AND BEARING DEPTH

Foundations should be embedded at least 18 inches below exterior grade. Maintain minimum foundation widths of 24 inches for continuous strip footings, and 36 inches for isolated column footings, even though the maximum allowable soil bearing stress may not be developed in all cases.

If a monolithic slab with integrated foundations (thickened edge floor slab) is used the foundation width can be reduced to 16 inches and embedment of a minimum 12 inches is recommended.

jkostage Highlight 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 6

4.3.5 STANDARD FLOOR SLAB

Earth-supported slabs should be constructed over compacted native soils or compacted structural fill. A fibermesh additive or welded wire mesh should be used to resist cracking. If welded wire is used, we recommend using flat wire instead of rolled. Normal weight concrete having a 28-day compressive strength (f’c) of at least 2500 pounds per square inch (psi) should be used. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used beneath the proposed floor slab, provided subgrades are prepared as recommended.

4.3.6 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE CONTROL

Per the Florida Building Code, we recommend installing polyethylene vapor barrier between the bottom of the floor slab and the top of the compacted subgrade. We recommend installing a minimum 10-mil, polyethylene vapor barrier between the bottom of the floor slab and the top of the compacted subgrade. This will help to minimize floor dampness and moisture intrusion into the structure through the slab. Assume a coefficient of friction of 0.2 at the soil-slab interface if a vapor barrier is used. If no vapor barrier is used, assume a coefficient of friction of 0.35 at the interface.

4.3.7 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT

For foundations designed as recommended and site earthwork accomplished according to the recommendations provided later in this report, we estimate total foundation settlement of less than one inch, and differential settlement of less than one half inch.

4.3.8 DESIGN CONSIDERATION – EXCAVATION NEAR EXISTING BUILDINGS

Due to the proximity of the neighboring buildings to the proposed site, care should be taken during design and construction, so the new footings do not impose additional loads on the existing neighboring footings or basement wall (below grade walls), as shown in the Zone Influence Diagram included in Appendix A of this report.

Additionally, during the excavation of new footings, care should be taken not to undermine the existing footings during excavations of new footings or not impose additional load on the existing footings or basement and below grade walls. If undermining of the existing footings or excavating within the zone of influence of the existing footings is expected, underpinning or reinforcing of the existing footings should be performed, using techniques such as chemical grouting or pin piles. If necessary, UES can provide recommendations for undermining or foundation reinforcement.

4.4 FILL SOIL SUITABILITY

We offer below preliminary guidelines for the use of imported to be used as fill material for the project.

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 7

Soil materials imported and classified as fine sands to slightly silty fine sands (SP, SP-SM), with typically 12% fines or less (silt/clay fraction), may be considered suitable for use as utility trench backfill, as well as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, provided said materials are properly dried, placed, and compacted.

Soil materials imported and classified as silty to slightly clayey fine sands (SM, SP-SC), with typically 12% to 25% fines, may also be considered suitable for use as utility trench backfill, as well as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, after significant drying and some mixing with the fine sand material described above. Proper placement and compaction must also be ensured.

Soil materials excavated and classified as silt or clay (ML, MH, CL, CH) and any organic-laden soils (5% or greater organics by weight) should not be reused as fill beneath buildings or pavement sections. These materials could be used in green areas, if applicable, and in non-structural applications where excessive ground subsidence will not create functional or aesthetic problems.

4.5 BELOW GRADE WALL

We recommend that all permanent below grade walls be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads from soil, adjacent building foundations, or streets. We recommend that walls that are restrained from movement at the top be designed for a linearly increasing lateral earth pressure.

The following values can be used for design of a below grade wall, where sand is used as the backfill material, and where there are no surcharge loads from slopes or other sources behind the wall.

Angle of Internal Friction: 30° Ka (coef. of active earth pressure): 0.33 Kp (coef. of passive earth pressure): 3.00 Ko (coef. of earth pressure at rest): 0.50 Coefficient of Friction (Soil/Concrete interface): 0.40 Unit weight of Soil (wet): 110 pounds per cubic foot Unit weight of Soil (submerged): 48 pounds per cubic foot

The above values are based on the use of granular, free-draining, sandy soils for the wall backfill. Soils having high fines content, particularly clays, may exhibit creep which would result in long-term deflection of a below grade wall (creep). Also, soils with high fines content may contribute to hydrostatic pressure buildup with the potential for premature failure of the walls.

Assuming hand compaction equipment will be utilized, we recommend below grade wall backfill be placed in 6 to 8-inch loose layers and compacted to 95% MPMDD.

An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to these parameters. It should be noted that uplift and lateral hydrostatic pressures could be exerted on the structure any time the groundwater level is at or near its seasonal high level. These forces should also be included in the proposed design. Also, retaining walls with adjacent sloping earth embankments or subject to permanent or intermittent structural loadings may require special considerations.

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 8

Retaining walls should be provided with a foundation drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressures which may develop in the wall backfill. This system should consist of weepholes through the wall and/or a 4-inch perforated, closed joint drain line located along the backside of the walls above the top of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of AASHTO Size No. 57 Stone wrapped with an approved non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140-N or equivalent.

All site retaining walls should be drained so that hydrostatic pressures do not build up behind the walls. Wall drains can consist of a 12-inch wide zone of free draining Gravel, such as AASHTO No. 57 Stone, employed directly behind the wall and separated from the soils beyond with a non-woven filter fabric. Alternatively, the wall drain can consist of a suitable geocomposite drainage board material. The wall drain should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain.

4.6 SITE PREPARATION

We recommend normal, good-practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include clearing and grubbing the site, proof-rolling and proof-compacting the subgrade, and filling to grade with engineered fill as needed.

A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows:

1. If required, perform remedial dewatering prior to any earthwork operations. We recommend temporary dewatering to reduce the likelihood of pumping of the shallow subgrade soils during normal construction operations. Maintain groundwater levels at least 24 inches below the lowest anticipated cut and/or all compaction surfaces.

2. If the existing structures need to be razed prior to new site development, execute demolition according to specifications to be provided by the project Structural Engineer.

Completely remove the affected structures including floor slabs, foundations, and subgrade utilities. Backfill excavated areas (i.e., footing and utility trenches) according to the guidelines discussed in Item #7 below.

3. Strip the proposed construction limits of all existing pavement sections (including base material, where present), grass, roots, topsoil, construction debris, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building and in all paved areas. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 6 inches, on average. Deeper clearing and grubbing depths may be required where major root systems are encountered.

4. Proof-roll the subgrade with a heavily loaded, rubber-tired vehicle under the observation of a UES geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proof-rolling will help locate any zones of especially loose or soft soils not encountered in the soil test borings. Then undercut, or otherwise treat these zones as recommended by the engineer.

5. Prior to any filling of the site, proof-compact the subgrade from the surface using suitable compaction equipment, until you obtain a minimum density of 95% MPMDD to a depth of 2 feet below stripped grade. In order to achieve the required degree of compaction, the soils may need to be moisture conditioned until the in-situ water content is within +/- 2% of the optimum moisture content (OMC).

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 9

6. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per foot of depth improvement in the building areas.

7. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of fine to medium sand with less than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and 12 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Place fill in uniform 10 to 12 inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95% MPMDD at a moisture content of +/- 2% of OMC.

8. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater.

9. Test all final footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 2 feet. Additionally, we recommend you test one out of every four column footings, and that you complete at least one test per every 50 lineal feet of wall footing.

Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We recommend you monitor nearby structures before and during proof-compaction. If disturbance is noted, halt vibratory compaction and inform Universal Engineering Sciences immediately. We will review the compaction procedures and evaluate if the compactive effort results in a satisfactory subgrade complying with our original design assumptions.

4.7 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

UES operates and maintains an in-house, FDOT certified Construction Materials Testing laboratory. Our technicians are highly trained and experienced, and our engineering staff is already familiar with the details of your project. Therefore, we recommend the owner retain UES to perform construction materials testing and field observations on this project. This includes monitoring all stripping and grading, observation of foundation excavation and construction, verification of pavement subgrade and all other construction testing and inspection services that may be needed on this project.

The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. It is an on-going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, our engineers are the most qualified to address problems that might arise during construction in a timely and cost-effective manner.

5.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Atlantic Engineering Services and other designated members of their design/construction team associated with the proposed construction for the specific project discussed in this report. No other site or project facilities should be designed using the soil information contained in this report. As such, UES will not be responsible for the performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report.

Atlantic Engineering Services Page 10

This report should not be relied upon for final design recommendations or professional opinions by unauthorized third parties without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences. Unauthorized third parties that rely upon the information contained herein without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC. assume all risk and liability for such reliance.

The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations.

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, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information 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 anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.

All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore, no attempt was made by Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested.

During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems.

Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) publication, "Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report" appears in Appendix C, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues.

HOUSE

A

ATLANTIC ENGINEERING SERVICES

0830.2200112

SC

JAMES A. HALEY VETERANS' HOSPITAL HELIPORT EXPANSION

13000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD.

TAMPA, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CLIENT:

SCALE: PROJECT NO: APPENDIX:REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY: DATE:

SITE LOCATION MAPUNIVERSAL

VD

AUG. 12, 2022

VD

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

STREET MAP (760 X 650)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AERIAL (760 X 650)

AutoCAD SHX Text

HARVARDSTON LOOP

AutoCAD SHX Text

ESTCODE

AutoCAD SHX Text

SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

ATLANTIC ENGINEERING SERVICES

0830.2200112

SC

JAMES A. HALEY VETERANS' HOSPITAL HELIPORT EXPANSION

13000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD.

TAMPA, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CLIENT:

SCALE: PROJECT NO: APPENDIX:REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY: DATE:

UNIVERSAL

VD

AUG. 12, 2022

VD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUBJECT SITE

AutoCAD SHX Text A

SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

0830.2200112

SC

JAMES A. HALEY VETERANS' HOSPITAL HELIPORT EXPANSION

13000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD.

TAMPA, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CLIENT:

SCALE: PROJECT NO: APPENDIX:REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY: DATE:

UNIVERSAL

AUG. 12, 2022

VD

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUBJECT SITE

AutoCAD SHX Text A

UNIVERSAL SOIL SURVEY MAP

0830.2200112

SC

JAMES A. HALEY VETERANS' HOSPITAL HELIPORT EXPANSION

13000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD.

TAMPA, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CLIENT:

SCALE: PROJECT NO: APPENDIX:REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY: DATE: AUG. 12, 2022

VD

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUBJECT SITE

A

0830.2200112

SC

JAMES A. HALEY VETERANS' HOSPITAL HELIPORT EXPANSION

13000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD.

TAMPA, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

UNIVERSAL ZONE OF INFLUENCE DIAGRAM

A

CLIENT:

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: APPENDIX:REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY: DATE: SEPT. 8, 2022

VD

(EXTERIOR WALL)

UNIVERSAL BORING LOCATION PLAN

Approximate SPT boring location

B

ATLANTIC ENGINEERING SERVICES

0830.2200112

SC

JAMES A. HALEY VETERANS' HOSPITAL HELIPORT EXPANSION

13000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD.

TAMPA, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CLIENT:

SCALE: PROJECT NO: APPENDIX:REVIEWED BY:

DRAWN BY: DATE: AUG. 12, 2022

VD

B-1

B-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

LEGEND

1-2-2-3

3-3-3-3

4-3-2-1

7-7-9

5-7-8

Light gray sand with shell (SP) - Fill

Gray clayey sand (SC)

Light gray sand (SP)

Light gray and yellow clayey sand (SC)

Green and light gray sandy clay with cemented clay

(CL)

Boring terminated at 20 ft.

13.2

15.8

20.4

19.8

0830.2200112

ENGINEER:

SECTION:

PROJECT NO.:

8/11/22

8/11/2022 UNIVERSAL

SPT

8/11/22

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

DATE STARTED:

BORING LOG

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

CLIENT: Atlantic Engineering Services

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

PAGE:

PL

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

DEPTH

(ft)

DATE OF READING:

DATE FINISHED:

DRILLED BY:

ELEVATION:

BLOW

COUNTS

PROJECT:

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

1 of 1BORING DESIGNATION: SHEET:

James A Haley Veterans Hospital Heliport

13000 Bruce B Downs Blvd.

Veronica De Freitas, P.E.

Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida

APPENDIX:

ORG

G W T

SPT-N vs DEPTH (bpf)

250 50

S Y M B O L

MC

DESCRIPTION

LL

N (bpf)

-200

9.0

B-1

K

(FT/

DAY)

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619

(813) 740-8506

S A M P L E

A

LT

U E

S B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

.2

J

A M

E S

A

H A

LE

Y

V E

T E

R N

A S

H O

S P

IT

A

L H

E

LI

P O

R .G

P J

U E

S _N

E W

.G D

T

8/

/2

WATER TABLE (ft):

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

UNIVERSAL KEY TO BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES

GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines CLEAN

GRAVELS

GP

Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM Silty gravels and gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GRAVELS

50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

GRAVELS

WITH FINES

GC Clayey gravels and gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW** Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

CLEAN

SANDS

5% or less passing No.

200 sieve SP** Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM** Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

C O

A R

S E

G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M or e th an

0% re ta in ed o n th e

N o.

s ie ve

SANDS

More than

50% of coarse fraction passes No.

4 sieve

SANDS with 12% or more passing No.

200 sieve SC** Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

ML

Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit 50% or less

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diamicaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays or clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

FI

N

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

IO

LS

o r m or e pa ss es th e

N o.

s ie ve

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit greater than 50%

PT Peat, muck and other highly organic soils

*Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75 mm) sieve ** Use dual symbol (such as SP-SM and SP-SC) for soils with more than 5% but less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve

RELATIVE DENSITY

(Sands and Gravels)

Very loose – Less than 4 Blow/Foot Loose – 4 to 10 Blows/Foot

Medium Dense – 11 to 30 Blows/Foot Dense – 31 to 50 Blows/Foot

Very Dense – More than 50 Blows/Foot

CONSISTENCY

(Silts and Clays)

Very Soft – Less than 2 Blows/Foot Soft – 2 to 4 Blows/Foot Firm – 5 to 8 Blows/Foot Stiff – 9 to 15 Blows/Foot

Very Stiff – 16 to 30 Blows/Foot Hard – More than 30 Blows/Foot

RELATIVE HARDNESS

(Limestone) Soft – 100 Blows for more than 2 Inches Hard – 100 Blows for less than 2 Inches

MODIFIERS

These modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Minor Constituents (Silt or Clay Size Particles) in the Soil Sample

Trace – 5% or less With Silt or With Clay – 6% to 11%

Silty or Clayey – 12% to 30% Very Silty or Very Clayey – 31% to 50%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Organic

Components in the Soil Sample Trace – Less than 3%

Few – 3% to 4% Some – 5% to 8%

Many – Greater than 8%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Other Components (Shell, Gravel, Etc.) in the Soil Sample

Trace – 5% or less Few – 6% to 12%

Some – 13% to 30% Many – 31% to 50%

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

N-Value No. of Blows of a 140-lb. Weight Falling 30 Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon 1 Foot

WOR Weight of Drill Rods

WOH Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer

Sample from Auger Cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Sample

Thin-wall Shelby Tube Sample (Undisturbed Sampler Used)

RQD Rock Quality Designation

Stabilized Groundwater Level

Seasonal High Groundwater Level (also referred to as the W.S.W.T.)

NE Not Encountered

GNE Groundwater Not Encountered

BT Boring Terminated

-200 (%) Fines Content or % Passing No. 200 Sieve

MC (%) Moisture Content

LL Liquid Limit (Atterberg Limits Test)

PI Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits Test)

NP Non-Plastic (Atterberg Limits Test)

K Coefficient of Permeability

Org. Cont. Organic Content

G.S. Elevation Ground Surface Elevation

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical 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 civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you 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 the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you;

• not prepared for your project;

• not prepared for the specific site explored; or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:

• 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. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

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.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.

To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited;

encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of 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.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical 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 environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.

To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;

none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of 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. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, 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 as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

WARRANTY

Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report.

UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan.