Geotech_Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

North Causeway Boat Ramp: Dock & Amenity New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida

UES Project No. 0430.2300181.0000

UES Report No. 2026264

March 5, 2024

Prepared For:

Mr. Shailesh Patel Dredging & Marine Consultants

4643 Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 302 Port Orange, Florida 32129

Prepared By:

UES

911 Beville Road, Suite 3

South Daytona, Florida 32119

(386) 756-1105 i

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

2.1 PURPOSE

2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.2 GROUNDWATER

4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

4.3 SITE PREPARATION FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

5.0 PILING RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

7.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Plan ..................................................................................................................... A-1 Boring Logs ................................................................................................................................... A-2 Key to Boring Logs Sheet ............................................................................................................. A-3

APPENDIX B

Geotechnical Business Council Document ................................................................................... B-1 Constraints and Restrictions ......................................................................................................... B-2

North Causeway Boat Ramp: Dock & Amenity UES Project No. 0430.2300181.0000 New Smynra Beach, Volusia County, Florida UES Report No. 2026264

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project information has been provided to us in correspondence with you and Mr. Mehul Patel, P.E. and Ms. Natalie Tejada with Dredging & Marine Consultants. We were provided with an aerial photograph indicating the requested boring locations. We understand that the proposed project will consist of reconstructing the existing docks adjacent to the existing boat ramps and new day docks along the southern shoreline of the subject property. We also understand three (3) pavilions will be constructed at various locations along the shoreline. We anticipate that these structures may consist of concrete masonry units (CMU) with steel reinforcement and wood construction or steel construction. We have assumed the maximum wall and column loads will not exceed 4 kips per linear foot and 15 kips, respectively. We also understand that the pilings utilized to facilitate the construction of the proposed docks will consist of 12 to 16-inch square pre-stressed concrete,12-inch diameter timber piles and 14-inch diameter timber piles.

Our recommendations are based upon the above considerations. If any of this information is incorrect, or if you anticipate any changes, inform UES so that we may review our recommendations.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

2.1 PURPOSE

The purposes of this investigation were:

• to investigate the general subsurface conditions at the site;

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

• to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for shallow foundation design and pile installation; and

• to provide soil design parameters for pile design.

This report presents an evaluation of site conditions based on traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. UES would be pleased to provide these services, at your request.

Our investigation was confined to the zone of soil likely to be influenced by the proposed construction.

Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. A deep geological evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than performed in this study.

2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.2.1 BORINGS

The subsurface conditions were investigated with:

• Five (5) in-water Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, B-1 through B-5 advanced to a depth of approximately 40 feet below mudline within the proposed dock areas;

• Two (2) SPT Borings, B-6 and B-7, advanced to a depth of approximately 15 feet below existing grade within the proposed pavilions; and

• One (1) auger boring, B-8, advanced to a depth of approximately 8 feet below existing grade.

We performed the SPT, auger borings and SCP readings according to the procedures of ASTM D-1586, ASTM D-1452 and ASTM D-3441.

The borings were located by our field personnel using measurements from established landmarks and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The location of the borings is presented on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix A.

Samples obtained from the borings were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. Samples of the soils encountered will be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 60 days unless we are notified otherwise.

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

2.3.1 INDEX TESTING

The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were returned to our laboratory and then a UES Engineer visually examined and reviewed the field descriptions. The soil was classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix A: Boring Location Plan and Subsurface Profiles. The classifications and descriptions shown on the profiles are based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Also, see Appendix A: Key to Boring Log, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Subsurface Profiles. The following discussion summarizes the soil conditions encountered.

The results of the in-water SPT borings, B-1 and B-5, generally indicated intermittent layers of very loose to very dense fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP-SM), silty fine sand (SM) and clayey fine sand (SC) to the boring termination depth of approximately 40 feet below mudline.

The results of the SPT borings, B-6 and B-7, generally indicated intermittent layers of loose to dense fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP-SM) and silty fine sand (SM) to the boring termination depth of approximately 15.0 feet below existing grade. As an exception, concrete debris (DEBRIS) was encountered at depths varying between approximately 2.5 and 8.5 feet below existing grade at Boring locations B-6 and B-7.

The results of the auger borings with SCP readings generally indicated clayey fine sand (SC) to a depth of approximately 2.5 feet below existing grade which is further underlain by fine sand with silt (SP-SM) to the boring termination depth of approximately 5.0 feet below existing grade.

3.2 GROUNDWATER

We recorded groundwater subsequent to drilling at depths varying approximately between 1.6 and 5.3 feet below existing grade at Boring Locations B-6 through B-8. It should be noted that groundwater and surface water may perch above the clayey soils subsequent to significant rainfall activity. The depth of the groundwater level encountered at each boring location is presented on the Subsurface Profiles.

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.

4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If the structural loadings, construction locations, or grading information change from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes.

As discussed, concrete (DEBRIS) was encountered between approximately 2.5 and 8.5 feet below existing grade at boring locations B-6 and B-7. We recommend backhoe excavated test pits be performed at and adjacent to these boring locations. It is our opinion that the test pits will enable UES to determine the necessity of any materials to be removed and if so, the horizontal and vertical limits of the unsuitable soil to be removed. Any significant debris, if encountered, will require removal and replacement with suitable fill material as discussed in Section 4.3.

Additionally, as presented in the subsurface profiles, clayey fine sand (SC) was encountered within the upper approximately 2.5 feet at Boring Location B-8. The near surface clayey soils (SC) as encountered do not provide uniform soil bearing characteristics due to their fines contents and plasticity characteristics. We recommend a two-foot separation be maintained between foundation bearing levels and the top of the clayey soils. The separation may be achieved by raising the grade or over excavating the clayey soils (SC) and replacing with suitable backfill as discussed in Section 4.3.

Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, which were not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations.

4.2 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, we consider the subsurface conditions at the site favorable for support of the proposed structure when constructed on a properly designed shallow foundation system. Provided the soils are prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation Section of this report, the following parameters may be used for foundation design.

4.2.1 BEARING PRESSURE

The maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure for shallow foundation should not exceed 2,000 pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). Net bearing pressure is defined as the soil bearing pressure at the base of the foundation in excess of the natural overburden pressure. The foundation should be designed based upon the maximum load that could be imposed by all loading conditions.

4.2.2 FOUNDATION SIZE

The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footing and continuous wall footings are 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the size of the foundations.

4.2.3 BEARING DEPTH

The exterior foundation should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the exterior final grades and the interior footings should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the interior final grade to provide confinement to the bearing level soils. We recommend stormwater and surface water be diverted away from the building exterior, both during and after construction, to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings.

4.2.4 BEARING MATERIAL

The foundation may bear on compacted structural fill. The bearing level soils, after compaction, should exhibit densities of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the bearing soils as determined by ASTM D-1557 (Modified Proctor), to the depth described subsequently in the Site Preparation section of the report. In addition to compaction, the bearing soils must exhibit stability and be free of “pumping” conditions.

4.2.5 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES

Post-construction settlement of the structures will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing soils; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundations; (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor, and (4) external factors, including but not limited to vibration from offsite sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally anticipated for the naturally-occurring site and soil conditions which are present.

Our settlement estimates for the structures are based upon the use of successful adherence to the site preparation recommendations presented later in this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlement of the structures.

Due to the sandy nature of the surficial soils, following the compaction operations, we expect a significant portion of settlement to be elastic in nature. This settlement is expected to occur relatively quickly, upon application of the loads, during and immediately following construction.

Using the recommended maximum bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads, and the field test data which we have correlated to the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total settlements of the structures to be approximately one inch or less.

Differential settlement results from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Based on the subsurface conditions as determined by our borings, it is anticipated that differential settlements will be within tolerable limits.

4.3 SITE PREPARATION FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

We recommend the following site preparation procedures for the building area:

1. Prior to construction, the location of 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 overlying structures.

2. Strip the proposed construction limits of all grass, roots, topsoil, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structures. Expect minimal clearing and grubbing. As discussed, we recommend a two-foot separation be maintained between the top of the clayey soils and foundation bearing levels and any significant debris encountered within the structure areas should be removed and replaced with suitable backfill.

3. Because of the need for over-excavation of the unsuitable soils to depths on the order of

8.5 feet, followed by replacement with compacted backfill, it will most likely be necessary to install temporary groundwater control measures to dewater the area to facilitate the over-excavation and backfilling processes. We recommend implementing temporary groundwater control measures if the groundwater is within two feet of the required depth of excavation at the time of construction. Dewatering measures should be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend the groundwater control measures remain in-place until compaction of the existing soils is completed and backfilling has reached a height of 2 feet above the groundwater level at the time of construction. The site should be graded to direct surface water runoff from the construction area.

4. We recommend over-excavating the unsuitable soils within and to a distance of at least five feet beyond the horizontal limits of the proposed building envelope. The replacement soil should be placed and compacted in accordance with the below sections.

The actual depths of unsuitable soils and materials should be determined by UES using visual observation and judgment during earthwork operations.

Excavation work will be required to meet OSHA requirements. Either a braced sheet pile structure or excavation with temporary slopes cut back at 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.5H:1V) may be used depending on the specific project requirements. The 1.5H:1V slopes are contingent upon the dewatering system adequately controlling slope groundwater seepage. Sheet piling, if required, should be designed in accordance with OSHA requirements by a Florida Registered Professional Engineer.

5. Compact the exposed surface using medium weight equipment tracked dozer or vibratory equipment. Due to the proximity of the adjacent structures, we do not recommend that vibratory equipment be used with 100 feet of existing structures. The upper one foot of soils below the exposed surface (subsequent to over-excavation) within the building area should be improved to achieve a minimum compaction requirement of 95% of the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557). Do not directly compact clayey soils. We recommend a lift of backfill soil be placed above the clayey soils prior to compaction. We recommend the compacted soils exhibit moisture content within 2 percent of the soils optimum moisture content as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557).

Should the soils experience pumping and soil strength loss during the compaction operations, compaction work should be immediately terminated and (1) the disturbed soils removed and backfilled with dry structural fill soils which are then compacted, or (2) the excess moisture content within the disturbed soils allowed to dissipate before recompacting.

6. Test the compacted surface for compliance at a minimum of five locations within the building area. The number of tests required may vary due to the site work contractors’ backfilling plan (backfill in strips). This will be addressed during earthwork operations.

7. Place backfill and 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 percent and 10 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Place fill in uniform 8 to 12-inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend the compacted soils exhibit moisture content within 2 percent of the soils optimum moisture content as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557). If light compaction equipment is used, we recommend the lift thickness be reduced to 8 inch thick lifts.

8. Perform compliance tests within the backfill and fill soils at a minimum of five locations per lift within the building area. The number of tests required may vary due to the site work contractors’ backfilling plan (backfill in strips). This will be addressed during earthwork operations.

9. Compact and test footing cuts for compaction to a depth of one foot below bearing level.

We recommend that you test one out of every four (25 percent) column footings and perform one test per every 25 linear feet of wall footing. Compaction operations in confined areas, such as footing excavations, can best be performed with a lightweight vibratory sled or other hand-held compaction equipment.

5.0 PILING RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If the construction locations change from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes.

As discussed, we understand the proposed fixed dock sections may be supported by 12 and 14-inch diameter pressure treated timber pilings and the proposed floating sections will be constrained with 12 to 16-inch square pre-stressed concrete piles. These piles will most likely be jetted, or possibly driven into place. We evaluated these piles for full lateral stability. To estimate lateral pile deflection and bending moment in a pile foundation caused by applied lateral loads, it is possible to consider the pile as a free-standing structural member fixed at a certain depth below the ground surface. This structural member can then be analyzed as a cantilever beam. Based on the soil types and understood pile types, the estimated depths required to be considered fixed and to achieve full lateral stability are presented in Table 1.

The contractor should anticipate difficult jetting/driving conditions within the dense and very dense soil zones. We recommend that the piles do not be terminated within the very loose soil zones and within clayey soils.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

We recommend the owner retain UES to perform construction materials tests and observations on this project. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation subgrades by monitoring filling operations and performing quality assurance tests on the placement of compacted natural soils and structural fill. We can also perform concrete testing, pavement section testing, structural steel testing and other construction materials testing services.

Vibrations from the earthwork equipment and wall sheet installation operations need to be considered to preclude any damage to adjacent structures. UES can provide property condition surveys prior to sheet pile installation. Also, UES can provide vibration monitoring services during the installation process to aid in protecting the existing adjacent structures from structural distress.

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.

7.0 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 Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE) 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.

TABLE I

Piling Embedment Recommendations

Piling Material Piling Dimensions

Estimated Minimum Embedment Depth for Full Lateral Fixity (feet below mudline)

Estimated Minimum Embedment Depth for Full Lateral Stability (feet below mudline) Pressure

Treated Timber 12-inch Diameter 6 11

Pressure Treated Timber 14-inch Diameter 7 12

Pre-stressed Concrete 12-inch Square 7 14

Pre-stressed Concrete 14-inch Square 8 15

Pre-stressed Concrete 16-inch Square 9 16

CAUSEWAY N.

B-5

B-4

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-6 B-7

B-8

GRAPHIC SCALE

0 100 200

(IN FEET)

1 INCH ~ 200 ft.~

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORING

LEGEND

PROJECT:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

TITLE:

REPORT NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

DATE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

MKL

A-1

SCALE:

1" ~ 200'~

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264 0430.2300181.000003/04/24

03/04/24

BORING LOCATION PLAN

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-2

PROJECT:

BP

03/05/24

03/05/24

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.0000

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with some to many SHELL fragments (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

N

25'25'

20'20'

15'15'

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-1

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0'

Loose light brown fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

30'30'

35'35'

40'40'

N

WOH

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-2

WATER

MUDLINE

WATER

45'45'

50'50'

55'55'

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT

(SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Very dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT and few SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

WATER

MUDLINE

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT and some

SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Very loose gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Very loose gray fine SAND with SILT and few to some ORGANICS (SP-SM)

Medium dense light gray fine SAND with trace SILT (SP)

Dense light gray fine SAND with trace SILT

(SP)

Very dense gray fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Very loose gray very CLAYEY fine SAND with few SHELL fragments (SC)

Loose light brown fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Medium dense brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Very dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT and few SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND with trace SHELL fragments (SC)

-200 = 5.8%

-200 = 4.4% -200 = 11.5%

-200 = 43.9%

Loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-3

PROJECT:

BP

03/05/24

03/05/24

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.0000

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with some to many SHELL fragments (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

N

WOH

25'25'

20'20'

15'15'

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-3

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0'

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

30'30'

35'35'

40'40'

WOH

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-4

WATER

MUDLINE

WATER

45'45'

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Dense gray very CLAYEY fine SAND with trace SHELL fragments (SC)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and some SHELL fragments (SP)

Very loose gray fine SAND with trace SILT

(SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT

(SP)

Medium dense gray SILTY fine SAND with trace SHELL fragments (SM)

Very loose gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT and few SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Soft gray CLAY (CH)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and some SHELL fragments (SP)

Dense gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

-200 = 20.6%

-200 = 30.9%

-200 = 75.9%

CLAY (CH)

-200 = 13.6%

N

WATER

MUDLINE

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-4

PROJECT:

BP

02/29/24

02/29/24

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.0000

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with some to many SHELL fragments (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

N

25'25'

20'20'

15'15'

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-5

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0'

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

30'30'

35'35'

40'40'

WATER

MUDLINE

WATER

45'45'

50'50'

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Very soft gray SANDY CLAY (CL)

Very dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

CLAY (CH)

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Loose gray cemented SAND and SHELL

Medium stiff gray CLAY (CH)

-200 = 7.4%

-200 = 59.5%

-200 = 65.6%

N

HA

HA

HA

HA

8 15'15' E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-6

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0' TOPSOIL

Loose gray SILTY fine SAND with trace SHELL fragments (SM)

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Static Cone Penetrometer Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

Qc N

HA

WOH

Kv -200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-5

PROJECT:

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.000003/05/24

03/05/24

B-7 Light brown fine SAND with SILT and trace

SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Loose gray SILTY fine SAND with trace

ROOTS (SM)

Light brown fine SAND with trace SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP)

Medium dense light gray fine SAND with trace SILT (SP)

03/05/24 5.3'

N

HA

HA

HA

HA

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

TOPSOIL

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Dark gray fine SAND with trace SILT, few SHELL fragments and few GRAVEL (SP)

Light brown fine SAND with trace SILT and few pieces of CONCRETE debris (DEBRIS)

Very loose gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Gray fine SAND with trace SILT and few pieces of CONCRETE debris (DEBRIS)

Loose gray fine SAND with trace SILT and few pieces of CONCRETE debris (DEBRIS)

-200 = 7.2% MC = 23.1%

03/05/24 3.9'

Brown fine SAND with SILT and some pieces of CONCRETE and ASPHALT debris

(DEBRIS)

03/05/24 1.6'

E.O.B. @ 5.0'

B-8

0'0' TOPSOIL

1'

2'

3'

4'

1'

2'

3'

4'

-200 = 16.2%

Loose dark gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

Loose to medium dense light brown fine SAND with SILT, few SHELL fragments and trace pieces of LIMEROCK (SP-SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Fine SAND (SP)

Loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND with few SHELL fragment and trace ROOTS (SC)

Qc

5' 5'

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

N

25'25'

20'20'

15'15'

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-1

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0'

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

30'30'

35'35'

40'40'

N

WOH

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-2

WATER

45'45'

50'50'

55'55'

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

NA (in feet) A-6

PROJECT:

BP

03/05/24

03/05/24

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.0000

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with some to many SHELL fragments (SP)

Fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM) = Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)

= Effective Unit Weight (PCF) = Unit Weight Below Water Table (PCF) = Coefficient of Active Lateral Earth Pressure = Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth Pressure = Coefficient at Rest Lateral Earth Pressure = Cohesion (psf) f g gb Ka Kp Ko C

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 34 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.44 = 0.28 = 3.54

Ko Ka Kp

= 38 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.38 = 0.24 = 4.20

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 34 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.44 = 0.28 = 3.54

Ko Ka Kp

= 42 = 130 = 68 f g gb

= 0.33 = 0.20 = 5.04

Ko Ka Kp

= 32 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.47 = 0.31 = 3.25

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 28 = 104 = 45 f g gb

= 0.53 = 0.36 = 2.77

Ko Ka Kp

= 26 = 98 = 40 f g gb

= 0.56 = 0.39 = 2.56

Ko Ka Kp

= 34 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.44 = 0.28 = 3.54

Ko Ka Kp

= 38 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.38 = 0.24 = 4.20

Ko Ka Kp

= 42 = 130 = 68 f g gb

= 0.33 = 0.20 = 5.04

Ko Ka Kp

= 26 = 98 = 40 f g gb

= 0.56 = 0.39 = 2.56

Ko Ka Kp

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 42 = 130 = 68 f g gb

= 0.33 = 0.20 = 5.04

Ko Ka Kp

= 28 = 104 = 45 f g gb

= 0.53 = 0.36 = 2.77

Ko Ka Kp

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

NA (in feet) A-7

PROJECT:

BP

03/05/24

03/05/24

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.0000

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with some to many SHELL fragments (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

N

WOH

25'25'

20'20'

15'15'

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-3

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0'

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

30'30'

35'35'

40'40'

WOH

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-4

WATER

45'45'

CLAY (CH)

N

= Angle of Internal Friction (degrees) = Effective Unit Weight (PCF) = Unit Weight Below Water Table (PCF) = Coefficient of Active Lateral Earth Pressure = Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth Pressure = Coefficient at Rest Lateral Earth Pressure = Cohesion (psf) f g gb Ka Kp Ko C

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 32 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.47 = 0.31 = 3.25

Ko Ka Kp

= 32 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.47 = 0.31 = 3.25

Ko Ka Kp

= 32 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.47 = 0.31 = 3.25

Ko Ka Kp

= 34 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.44 = 0.28 = 3.54

Ko Ka Kp

= 34 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.44 = 0.28 = 3.54

Ko Ka Kp

= 26 = 98 = 40 f g gb

= 0.56 = 0.39 = 2.56

Ko Ka Kp

= 26 = 98 = 40 f g gb

= 0.56 = 0.39 = 2.56

Ko Ka Kp

= 28 = 104 = 45 f g gb

= 0.53 = 0.36 = 2.77

Ko Ka Kp

= 38 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.38 = 0.24 = 4.20

Ko Ka Kp

= 38 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.38 = 0.24 = 4.20

Ko Ka Kp

= 40 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.36 = 0.22 = 4.60

Ko Ka Kp

= 40 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.36 = 0.22 = 4.60

Ko Ka Kp

= 40 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.36 = 0.22 = 4.60

Ko

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

NA (in feet) A-8

PROJECT:

BP

03/05/24

03/05/24

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

NORTH CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2026264

0430.2300181.0000

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with some to many SHELL fragments (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

N

25'25'

20'20'

15'15'

E.O.B. @ 40.0'

B-5

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0'

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

30'30'

35'35'

40'40'

WATER

45'45'

50'50'

CLAY (CH)

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

= Angle of Internal Friction (degrees) = Effective Unit Weight (PCF) = Unit Weight Below Water Table (PCF) = Coefficient of Active Lateral Earth Pressure = Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth Pressure = Coefficient at Rest Lateral Earth Pressure = Cohesion (psf) f g gb Ka Kp Ko C

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 28 = 104 = 45 f g gb

= 0.53 = 0.36 = 2.77

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko Ka Kp

= 32 = 115 = 55 f g gb

= 0.47 = 0.31 = 3.25

Ko Ka Kp

= 26 = 98 = 40 f g gb

= 0.56 = 0.39 = 2.56

Ko Ka Kp

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 42 = 130 = 68 f g gb

= 0.33 = 0.20 = 5.04

Ko Ka Kp

= 40 = 127 = 65 f g gb

= 0.36 = 0.22 = 4.60

Ko Ka Kp

= 29 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.52 = 0.35 = 2.88

Ko Ka Kp

= 30 = 109 = 50 f g gb

= 0.50 = 0.33 = 3.00

Ko

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 geotechnical 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.