Addendum_#1_-Geotechnical_Soil_Report.pdf

REPORT OF A

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

NFC Fitness Court – Moody Avenue Park

Orange Park, Florida

December 15, 2023

PROJECT NO. 0930.2300249.0000

REPORT NO. 2057106

Prepared for:

CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

477 Houston Street

Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043

Prepared by:

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

5561 Florida Mining Boulevard South

Jacksonville, Florida 32257-3648

(904) 296-0757

Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection

Clay County Board of County Commissioners 477 Houston Street Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043

Attention: Mr. Tony Stimac

Reference: REPORT OF A GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION NFC Fitness Court – Moody Avenue Park Orange Park, Florida UES Project No. 0930.2300249.0000 and Report No. 2057106

Dear Mr. Stimac:

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC has completed a subsurface exploration at the site of the proposed fitness court located at 3510 Moody Avenue in Orange Park, Florida. These services were provided in general accordance with our Proposal No. 2043091 dated October 3, 2023. This report contains the results of our exploration, an engineering evaluation with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and recommendations for groundwater considerations, foundation design, and site preparation. A summary of our findings is as follows:

• The borings generally encountered very loose to loose fine sand (SP) in the upper 6.0 to

8.0 feet. This is underlain by medium dense to dense weakly cemented fine sand with silt (SP-SM) (Hardpan) with an isolated very dense layer extending to the maximum depth explored of 15 feet below the existing grade.

• We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations at depths of 0.2 to 3.0 feet below the existing grade. The variation in groundwater levels is likely attributed to the topographic variations and we also anticipate that the levels at or near the surface may not be stabilized due to recent rains. We estimate the seasonal high groundwater level will occur approximately 1.0 to 1.5 feet below the existing grade at the time of our exploration.

• Assuming the slab area will be constructed in accordance with our Site Preparation

Recommendations, we have recommended the proposed structure be supported on conventional, shallow spread foundations with an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot.

• Based on our observation of the soils and borings, hardpan layers were encountered in variable thickness at depths of 7.5 to 8.0 feet and extending to the 15-foot boring termination depths. Therefore, the contractor should anticipate the possibility of difficult excavation if hardpan soils are encountered in any excavations.

• We recommend only normal, good practice site preparation techniques to prepare the existing subgrade to support the proposed courtstructure. These techniques include stripping topsoils and vegetation, dewatering as warranted, compacting the subgrade and placing engineered fill to the desired grades.

We trust this report meets yours needs and addresses the geotechnical issues associated with the proposed construction. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.

Respectfully submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, LLC

Certificate of Authorization No. 549

Stephen R. Weaver, P.E. Vinay Kumar Arebelli Geotechnical Services Manager Geotechnical Project Engineer FL P.E. Number 37389

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.2 PURPOSE

2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.3.1 SPT Borings

2.3.2 Auger Borings

2.4 LABORATORY TESTING

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SOIL SURVEY

3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3.1 Soil Conditions

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

4.3.1 Bearing Pressure

4.3.2 Foundation Size

4.3.3 Bearing Depth

4.3.4 Bearing Material

4.3.5 Settlement Estimates

4.3.6 Fitness Slab

4.4 SITE PREPARATION

4.5 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

5.0 LIMITATIONS

UES Project No. 0930.2300249.0000 UES Report No. 2057106

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this report, we present the results of the subsurface exploration of the site for the proposed fitness court located at 3510 Moody Avenue in Orange Park, Florida. We have divided this report into the following sections:

• SCOPE OF SERVICES - Defines what we did;

• FINDINGS - Describes what we encountered;

• RECOMMENDATIONS - Describes what we encourage you to do;

• LIMITATIONS - Describes the restrictions inherent in this report; and

• APPENDICES - Presents support materials referenced in this report.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project information was provided to us in recent correspondence with you. We were provided with a copy of Minimum Standards drawings for NFC Fitness Courts dated 3/9/2023. These plans show various details of the fitness court design.

We understand that the project consists of a fitness court. The court will consist of a concrete slab, a small wall and various equipment. It is understood the slab will have dimensions of approximately 38’×73’ and will be designed for bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Detailed grading information has not been provided; therefore, we assume a maximum of two feet of elevating fill will be required for site development.

We note that since the applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project characteristics, most specifically: improvement locations, grade alterations, and actual structural loads applied, UES must review the preliminary and final site and grading plans, and structural design loads to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Without such review our recommendations should not be relied upon for final design or construction of any site improvements.

2.2 PURPOSE

The purposes of this exploration were:

• to explore the general subsurface conditions at the site;

• to interpret and evaluate the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed construction; and

• to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for groundwater considerations, foundation design and site preparation.

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. Universal Engineering Sciences would be pleased to perform these services, if you desire.

Our exploration was confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction. Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than performed in this study. We will be pleased to conduct an investigation to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you desire.

2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

A field exploration was performed on November 30, 2023. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix A. The approximate boring locations were determined in the field by our personnel using taped measurements from existing features at the site, and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. Samples of the soils encountered will be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 60 days unless we are notified otherwise.

2.3.1 SPT Borings

To explore the subsurface conditions within the proposed fitness court area, we located and drilled two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of approximately 15 feet below the existing ground surface in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1586. A summary of this field procedure is included in Appendix A.

Split-spoon soil samples recovered during performance of the borings were visually classified in the field and representative portions of the samples were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation.

2.3.2 Auger Borings

To determine the subsurface conditions within the proposed fitness court area, we located and drilled three (3) auger borings to depths of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The auger borings were drilled in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1452. A summary of this field procedure is included in the Field Procedures section of Appendix A. Representative soil samples recovered from the auger borings were returned to our laboratory for further evaluation.

2.4 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were returned to our office and examined by a geotechnical engineer. The samples were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System).

Three (3) fines content tests and three (3) moisture content tests were performed on samples collected from the borings. The results of these tests are presented on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. A brief description of the laboratory procedures used are also provided in Appendix A.

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SOIL SURVEY

Based on the Soil Survey for Clay County, Florida, as prepared by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the predominant predevelopment soil type at the site is identified as Leon (9). A summary of characteristics of these soil series were obtained from the Soil Survey and are included in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Summary of Soil Survey Information

Soil Type Constituents Hydrologic Group

Natural Drainage

Soil Permeability (Inches/Hr)

Seasonal High Water Table (ft)

Leon (9)

0-16” 16-26” 26-54” 54-80”

Fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand

B/D Poorly Drained

0-16” 16-26” 26-54” 54-80”

6.0 – 20

0.6 – 6.0

0.6 – 6.0

0.6 – 6.0

0 – 1.0

3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The site of the proposed fitness court is located at 3510 Moody Avenue in Orange Park, Florida.

The site is bounded by stormwater management facilities to the south and east, developed single-story structure to the west and elevated vacant area on the north. At the time of our exploration, the site was cleared and vacant. The site visually appears to slope down towards the east and south.

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3.1 Soil Conditions

The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix A: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Also, see Appendix A: Key to Boring Logs, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. Table 2: General Soil Profile summarizes the soil conditions encountered.

TABLE 2

General Soil Profile

Typical depth (ft) Soil Descriptions From To

0.0 7.5 to 8.0 Very loose to loose fine sand (SP) with an isolated medium dense layer

7.5 to 8.0 15* Medium dense to dense weakly cemented fine sand with silt (SP-SM) (Hardpan) with an isolated very dense layer

* Termination Depth of Deepest Boring [ ] Indicates Unified Soil Classification

We measured the stabilized groundwater level at depths of 0.2 to 3.0 feet below the existing grade. The variation in groundwater levels is likely attributed to the topographic variations and we also anticipate that the levels at or near the surface may not be stabilized due to recent rains.

It should be anticipated the groundwater level will fluctuate due to topography, seasonal climatic variations, surface water runoff patterns, tidal fluctuations, construction operations, and other interrelated factors.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

In this section of the report, we present our detailed recommendations for groundwater considerations, slab foundation, site preparation, and construction related services. The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. We recommend that we be provided the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications to confirm that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. If the structural loadings or the slab location change significantly from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. The discovery of any subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from those encountered in the borings should be reported to us immediately for observation, evaluation and recommendations.

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall. The rainy season in Northeast Florida is normally between June and September. Based upon our review of U.S.G.S. data, Clay County Soil Survey, and regional hydrogeology, it is our opinion the seasonal high water level will occur approximately 1.0 to 1.5 feet below the existing grade at the time of our exploration.

Note: it is possible the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels will temporarily exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project.

We recommend all foundation designs be based on the seasonal high groundwater conditions and any design flood levels.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

Based on the results of our exploration, we consider the subsurface conditions at the site adaptable for support of the proposed structure when constructed on a properly designed conventional shallow foundation system. Provided the site preparation and earthwork construction recommendations outlined in Section 4.4 of this report are performed, the following parameters may be used for foundation design.

4.3.1 Bearing Pressure

The maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure for use in shallow foundation design should not exceed 2,000 psf. Net bearing pressure is defined as the soil bearing pressure at the foundation bearing level in excess of the natural overburden pressure at that level. The foundations should be designed based on the maximum load which could be imposed by all loading conditions.

4.3.2 Foundation Size

The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footings and continuous wall footings are 24 inches and 16 inches, respectively. For a monolithic slab, the minimum width recommended for thickened slabs beneath columns and load bearing walls are 18 inches and 12 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the minimum size of the foundations.

4.3.3 Bearing Depth

The exterior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 18 inches below the finished exterior grades and the interior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the finish floor elevation to provide confinement to the bearing level soils. Monolithic slab on grade foundations should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the finished exterior grades. It is recommended that stormwater be diverted away from the slab exteriors to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings.

4.3.4 Bearing Material

The foundations may bear in either the compacted suitable natural soils or compacted structural fill. The bearing level soils, after compaction, should exhibit densities equivalent to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least one foot below the foundation bearing level.

4.3.5 Settlement Estimates

Post-construction settlements of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundations; and (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor. Our settlement estimates for the structure are based on the use of site preparation/earthwork construction techniques as recommended in Section 4.4 of this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlements of the structure.

Due to the sandy nature of the near-surface soils, we expect the majority of settlement to occur in an elastic manner and fairly rapidly during construction. Using the recommended maximum bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads and the field data which we have correlated to geotechnical strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate that total settlements of the structure could be on the order of one inch or less.

Differential settlements result from differences in applied bearing pressures and variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Because of the general uniformity of the subsurface conditions and the recommended site preparation and earthwork construction techniques outlined in Section 4.5, we anticipate that differential settlements of the structure should be within tolerable magnitudes (½ inch or less).

4.3.6 Fitness Slab

The fitness slab can be constructed as a slab-on-grade member using a modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 100 pci provided the subgrade materials are compacted as outlined in Section 4.4.

It is recommended the floor slab bearing soils be covered with an impervious membrane to reduce moisture entry and floor dampness in accordance with the most recent version of the Florida Building Code requirements. A 10-mil thick plastic membrane is commonly used for this purpose. Care should be exercised not to tear the membrane during placement of reinforcing steel and concrete.

4.4 SITE PREPARATION

We recommend only normal, good practice site preparation techniques to prepare the existing subgrade to support the proposed structure. These techniques include stripping topsoil and vegetation, dewatering as warranted, compacting the subgrade, and placing engineered fill to the desired grades. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows:

1. Prior to construction, the location of any existing underground utility lines within the construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It should be noted that if underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve as conduits for subsurface erosion which may subsequently lead to excessive settlement of the overlying structure.

2. Strip away the topsoils, and other deleterious materials from within the proposed construction limits. The surface stripping and root raking should be performed within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed slab areas. Expect typical stripping at this site to a depth of 3 to 6 inches more or less. Some isolated areas may require more than a foot of stripping or undercutting to remove the root systems of underbrush or trees.

3. We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations at depths of 0.2 to 3.0 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. The groundwater level should be maintained at least 1 foot below any excavations and 2 feet below the surface of any vibratory compaction procedures.

4. Compact the subgrade from the surface with vibratory equipment until you obtain a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), to a depth of 1 foot below the compacted surface. Typically, the soils should exhibit moisture contents within ± 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content during compaction. A minimum of eight (8) complete coverages (in perpendicular directions) should be made in the building construction area with the roller to improve the uniformity and increase the density of the underlying sandy soils.

5. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of one test per 2,500 square feet or a minimum of two test locations in the slab area, whichever is greater.

6. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of "clean," fine 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 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Typically, the soils should exhibit a moisture content within ± 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content (ASTM D-1577) during the compaction procedures.

7. Test the subgrade and each lift of fill/backfill for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the slab areas, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. Verification testing should be performed on each lift, prior to the next lift being placed.

8. Test all footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 1 foot. We recommend you conduct density testing in every column footing, and every 100 linear feet in wall footings.

Recompaction of the foundation excavation bearing level soils, if loosened by the excavation process, can probably be achieved by making several coverages with a light weight walk-behind vibratory sled or roller.

4.5 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

We recommend the owner retain Universal Engineering Sciences to perform construction materials tests and observations on this project. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by performing quality assurance tests on the placement of compacted structural fill and pavement courses. We can also provide concrete testing, pavement section testing, structural steel testing, and general construction observation services.

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

5.0 LIMITATIONS

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. An Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) publication, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix B, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues.

Further, we present documents in Appendix B: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.

APPENDIX A

BORING LOCATION PLAN

SOIL PROFILE

BORING LOGS

KEY TO BORING LOGS

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

14.83.5

Dark brown to brown fine SAND (SP)

A-1

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

11/30/23

11/30/23

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

2.5

11/30/23

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

NFC FITNESS COURT MOODY AVENUE PARK

ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA

CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): ASTM D 1452

CLIENT:

-200

MC

BORING LOG

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

ST/IW

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2300249.0000

2057106

A-1

PROJECT:

B O

R

IN

G

L O

G

.2

.0

-N F

C F

IT

N

E S

S C

O U

R T

.G P

J U

N

IE

N G

S C

.G D

T

/1

/2

Dark brown fine SAND (SP)

A-2

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

11/30/23

11/30/23

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

0.2

11/30/23

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

NFC FITNESS COURT MOODY AVENUE PARK

ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA

CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): ASTM D 1452

CLIENT:

-200

MC

BORING LOG

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

ST/IW

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2300249.0000

2057106

A-2

PROJECT:

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

-N F

C F

IT

N

E S

S C

O U

R T

.G P

J U

N

IE

N G

S C

.G

/1

Dark brown fine SAND (SP)

A-3

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

11/30/23

11/30/23

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

1.5

11/30/23

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

NFC FITNESS COURT MOODY AVENUE PARK

ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA

CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): ASTM D 1452

CLIENT:

-200

MC

BORING LOG

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

ST/IW

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2300249.0000

2057106

A-3

PROJECT:

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

-N F

C F

IT

N

E S

S C

O U

R T

.G P

J U

N

IE

N G

S C

.G

/1

1-2-2

3-4-4

3-3-3

2-1-2

2-6-10

8-8-15

18-13-18

14-15-15

26.94.2

Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown fine

SAND (SP)

Medium dense to dense red-brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) (Hardpan)

B-1

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

11/30/23

11/30/23

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

1.4

11/30/23

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

NFC FITNESS COURT MOODY AVENUE PARK

ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA

CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): ASTM D 1586

CLIENT:

-200

MC

BORING LOG

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

ST/IW

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2300249.0000

2057106

A-4

PROJECT:

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

-N F

C F

IT

N

E S

S C

O U

R T

.G P

J U

N

IE

N G

S C

.G

/1

1/18"

50/2.5"

1-2-2

3-2-2

2-1-2

1/18"

1/12"-1

1-4-8

2-9-13

37-50/2-1/2"

30.23.1

Very loose to loose dark brown to brown fine

SAND (SP)

Medium dense to very dense dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) (Hardpan)

B-2

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

11/30/23

11/30/23

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

3.0

11/30/23

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

NFC FITNESS COURT MOODY AVENUE PARK

ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA

CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): ASTM D 1586

CLIENT:

-200

MC

BORING LOG

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

ST/IW

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2300249.0000

2057106

A-5

PROJECT:

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

-N F

C F

IT

N

E S

S C

O U

R T

.G P

J U

N

IE

N G

S C

.G

/1

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Standard Penetration Test Boring

The penetration boring was made in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1586, “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. The boring was advanced by rotary drilling techniques using a circulating bentonite fluid for borehole flushing and stability. At 2 ½ to 5 foot intervals, the drilling tools were removed from the borehole and a split-barrel sampler inserted to the borehole bottom and driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer falling on the average 30 inches per hammer blow. The number of blows for the final 12 inches of penetration is termed the “penetration resistance, blow count, or N-value”. This value is an index to several in-place geotechnical properties of the material tested, such as relative density and Young’s Modulus.

After driving the sampler 18 inches (or less if in hard rock-like material), the sampler was retrieved from the borehole and representative samples of the material within the split-barrel were placed in glass jars and sealed. After completing the drilling operations, the samples for each boring were transported to our laboratory where they were examined by our engineer in order to verify the driller’s field classification.

Auger Borings Manual

The auger borings were performed manually by the use of a post-hole auger and in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1452, “Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings”. Representative samples of the soils brought to the ground surface by the augering process were placed in glass jars, sealed and transported to our laboratory where they were examined by our engineer to verify the driller’s field classification.

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

Natural Moisture Content

The water content of the sample tested was determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 2216. The water content is defined as the ratio of “pore” or “free” water in a given mass of material to the mass of solid material particles.

Percent Fines Content

The percent fines or material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve of the sample tested was determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1140. The percent fines are the soil particles in the silt and clay size range.

APPENDIX B

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTION

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

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

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

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

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.

Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

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

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

specifications; and

• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

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

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.

Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.

Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.

Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.

Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

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

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. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these borings.

The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations.

CHANGED CONDITIONS

We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those present in this report.

No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report.

MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT

Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences.

CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION

This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences.

USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS

Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations.

Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations.

STRATA CHANGES

Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available information and may not be shown at the exact depth.

OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING

Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence.

WATER LEVELS

Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling and they indicate normally occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations.

LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report.

TIME

This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of exploration. If the report is not used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required.

CONSTRAINTS & RESTRICTIONS

The intent of this document is to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.

2.4 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 LIMITATIONS