UESDOCS-#1994922-v2-RPTS_GEO_Moccasin_Slough_Boardwalk.pdf

REPORT OF A

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Moccasin Slough Boardwalk

Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida

May 4, 2023

PROJECT NO. 0930.2200193.0000

REPORT NO. 1994922 v2

Prepared For:

GAI Consultants, Inc.

12574 Flagler Center Blvd, Suite 202

Jacksonville, Florida 32258

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

UNIVERSAL

ENGINEERING SCIENCES

GAI Consultants, Inc.

12574 Flagler Center Blvd, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32258

Attention: Mr. Bobby Jamieson, P.E.

Reference: REPORT OF A GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Moccasin Slough Boardwalk Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida UES Project No. 0930.2200193.0000 and Report No. 1994922

Dear Mr. Jamieson:

Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. has completed a subsurface exploration at the site of the proposed boardwalk over Moccasin Slough located in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida.

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 and foundation design. A summary of our findings is as follows:

• The borings generally encountered very loose to loose fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP-SM) and fine sand with clay (SP-SC) with isolated medium dense layers in the upper 5 to 12.5 feet underlain by very loose to loose clayey fine sand (SC) extending to depths of 17.5 to 22.5 feet below the existing grade. This layer is underlain by very loose to medium dense fine sand with silt (SP-SM) and fine sand with clay (SP-SC) with isolated dense layers to depths of 32.5 to 42.5 feet underlain by very loose to loose clayey fine sand (SC) and very soft to stiff clay (CH) extending to depths of 47.5 to 62.5 feet. This is underlain by medium dense to very dense fine sand with clay (SP-SC) and isolated very loose clayey fine sand (SC) to the boring termination depth of 75 feet below existing grade. As exception, Borings B-2 and B-3 in the marsh areas encountered a surface layer of peat (PT) to depths of 6.0 and 4.5 feet below the existing grade, respectively.

• We measured the groundwater levels at the boring location B-1 at a depth of 1.0 feet below the existing grade and borings B-2 and B-3 were performed within the marsh in approximately 2.0 feet and 0.5 feet of water, respectively. We estimate the seasonal high groundwater level will occur at the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration.

It is noted that groundwater conditions in this area will be highly dependent on the water level in the adjacent creek.

• We anticipate that timber piles will be used for the support of the proposed boardwalk and observatory tower. We analyzed 9-, and 12-inch minimum butt diameter timber piles using the software program, AllPile. Allowable compressive and uplift capacities curves for these analyses are included at the end of this report.

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, INC.

Certificate of Authorization No. 549

Stephen R. Weaver, P.E. Vinay 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

2.4 LABORATORY TESTING

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SOIL SURVEY

3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

4.3 DEEP FOUNDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

4.3.1 General

4.3.2 Pile Design Recommendations

4.4 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

5.0 LIMITATIONS

UES Project No. 0930.2200193.0000 UES Report No. 1994922-v2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this report, we present the results of the subsurface exploration of the site for the proposed boardwalk over Moccasin Slough located in Fleming Island, Clay County, 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 a Project Layout Plan dated August 29, 2022. This plan shows the boundary limits for the property and the layout of the proposed boardwalk.

We understand that the proposed development will include a boardwalk with overlook and observation towers that will extend across Moccasin Slough. It is anticipated the proposed boardwalk and observatory tower will be supported with timber piles.

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 and foundation design.

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 2, December 9 and December 14, 2022. 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.

To explore the subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed boardwalk area, we located and drilled three (3) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to a depth of 75 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.

2.4 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).

Twelve (12) wash 200 tests, twelve (12) moisture content tests and four (4) Atterberg Limits test were performed on samples collected from the boring. The results of these tests are presented on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. A brief description of the laboratory procedures used is also provided in Appendix A.

3.0 FINDINGS

3.1 SOIL SURVEY

Based on the Soil Survey data 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 Sapelo (8), Maurepas muck (25), Rutlege-Osier (29), Pamlico muck (43) and water

(99) due to the proximity to the moccasin slough.

TABLE 1

Summary of Soil Survey Information

Soil Type Constituents Hydrologic Group

Natural Drainage

Soil Permeability (Inches/Hr)

Seasonal High Water

Table

Sapelo (8)

0-16” 16-29” 29-49” 49-80”

Fine sand Fine sand, sand Fine sand, sand Sandy loam, sandy clay loam, fine sandy loam

D Poorly Drained

0-16” 16-29” 29-49” 49-80”

6.0 – 20

0.6 – 2.0

6.0 – 20

0.6 – 2.0 0.5 – 1.5

Maurepas Muck (25)

0-66” 66-75”

Muck Fine sand D Very Poorly

Drained 0-66” 66-75”

>2.0

6.0 – 20 +2 – 0

Rutlege-Osier (29)

0-14” 14-80”

Mucky fine sand Fine sand, sand A/D Very Poorly

Drained 0-80” 6.0 – 20 0.0 – 0.5

Pamlico (43)

0-38” 38-80”

Muck Loamy sand, sand, loamy fine sand

D Very Poorly Drained

0-38” 38-80”

0.6 – 6.0

6.0 – 20 +1 – 0

3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The site of the proposed boardwalk is located near 4393 Raggedy Point Rd, Fleming Island, Florida. The proposed boardwalk extends across marshes toward Moccasin Slough and the St.

Johns River.

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The boring location and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix A: Boring Location Plan and Boring Log. 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 4.5 to 6.0 Very soft Peat (PT) (Borings, B-2 and B-3)

0 4.5 to 12.5 Very loose to loose fine sand (SP), fine sand with silt (SP-SM), fine sand with clay (SP-SC) with isolated medium dense layer

4.5 to 12.5 17.5 to 22.5 Very loose to loose clayey fine sand (SC)

17.5 to 22.5 32.5 to 42.5 Very loose to medium dense fine sand with silt (SP-SM) and fine sand with clay (SP-SC) with isolated dense layer

32.5 to 42.5 47.5 to 62.5 Very loose to loose clayey fine sand (SC) and very soft to stiff

(CH)

47.5 to 62.5 75* Medium dense to very dense fine sand with clay (SP-SC) and isolated very loose clayey fine sand (SC)

* Termination Depth of Deepest Boring ( ) Indicates Unified Soil Classification

We measured the stabilized groundwater level at boring B-1 at a depth of 1.0 feet below the existing grade and borings B-2 and B-3 encountered water depths of 2.0 ft and 0.5 ft at the time of our exploration. It should be anticipated the groundwater level will fluctuate due to topography, seasonal climatic variations, surface water runoff patterns, 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, foundation, 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 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 typically occur at the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. It is noted that groundwater conditions in this area will be highly dependent on the water level in the adjacent creek.

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 DEEP FOUNDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

4.3.1 General

Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site and subsurface conditions at the property with respect to the anticipated construction are based on (1) our site observations, (2) the field data obtained, and (3) our understanding of the project information as presented in this report.

Should the project information be changed, please contact us so that we can review our evaluation.

Based on the results of our exploration and our understanding of the project information, we recommend a deep foundation system to support the proposed structure. The following paragraphs present our recommendations for the foundation system.

4.3.2 Pile Design Recommendations

Static pile capacities were estimated following the procedures described in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations. Additionally, the computer program ALLPILE was utilized.

Piles are sometimes predrilled or jetted to a prescribed depth and then driven a small distance to the anticipated tip elevation in order to attain pile penetration depths required while reducing other foundation installation concerns such as ground vibrations. Jetting is usually performed for cohesionless soils (i.e. sandy soils), while pre-drilling is reserved for cohesive soils (i.e. clayey soils). The use of predrilling or jetting will result in greater soil disturbance than considered in standard static pile capacity calculations. The effect of either of these installation methods must be accounted for in determining compression, uplift, and lateral pile capacity analyses. Jetting or predrilling pile foundations to the embedment depth in lieu of driving piles to the embedment could result in reduced allowable capacities (compression, tension, and lateral) on the order of 50 percent less than driven capacities.

The pile capacities presented below are based on the assumption that the piles will be driven for a minimum of the final 5 feet of penetration. It is our opinion that 9- and 12-inch timber piles could provide allowable compressive pile capacities as indicated in the attached Driven Pile Capacity curves. These curves show the capacities for a given depth below the adjacent ground surface. The allowable capacities incorporate Factors of Safety of against failure on the order of

2. Where a lower capacity is indicated within two pile diameters below the tip at a given depth, the lower capacity should be used.

4.3.2.1 Pile Group Effects

We recommend the minimum pile spacing to pile diameter ratio (S/D) be on the order of 2.5 to

3.0. Using a minimum S/D ratio on this order, we anticipate that any capacity reductions due to nearby piles should be small and therefore, should be considered insignificant in the design of the foundation system. If S/D ratios will be less than 2.5 to 3.0, a reduction in group efficiency will result in reduced allowable group pile capacities.

4.3.2.2 Settlement

With the deep foundation system properly installed to bear at the depths noted above, assuming the minimum S/D ratios are maintained as discussed above, we estimate the settlement of the piles to be within tolerable limits (estimated on the order of 0.5 to 0.75 inches or less). The settlement estimates have been based upon the use of (1) the field test data obtained during our geotechnical exploration, which has been correlated to geotechnical strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils beneath the site, and (2) published theoretical and empirical methods of settlement analysis for deep foundations bearing soils similar to those at the site.

4.3.2.3 Lateral Capacity

Lateral capacity analysis should include any reduction in soil capacity due to scour. If requested, we can provide the additional lateral capacity analysis if provided with detailed pile design and loading parameters. Table 3, 4 and 5 include design parameters to assist with lateral stability analyses using computer models such as ALLPILE.

TABLE 3

Recommended Soil Design Parameters B-1

Typical Depth*

(ft) Total Unit

Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle (Degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

Lateral Soil Modulus

(pci)

Recommended Earth Pressure Coefficients

From To At Rest (Ko)

Active (Ka)

Passive (Kp)

0 5 105 29 - 23 0.52 0.35 2.9 5 18 110 - 600 80 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 23 105 29 - 30 0.52 0.35 2.9 23 28 120 38 - 125 0.38 0.24 4.2 28 38 100 27 - 8 0.55 0.38 2.7 38 43 105 - 250 30 1.0 1.0 1.0 43 53 110 - 800 180 1.00 1.00 1.00 53 58 110 30 - 55 0.50 0.33 3.00 58 75 120 39 - 125 0.37 0.23 4.00

Depth below existing grade.

TABLE 4

Recommended Soil Design Parameters B-2

Typical Depth*

(ft) Total Unit

Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle (Degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

Lateral Soil Modulus

(pci)

Recommended Earth Pressure Coefficients

From To At Rest (Ko)

Active (Ka)

Passive (Kp)

0 6 90 - 100 4 1.00 1.00 1.0 6 13 105 29 - 30 0.52 0.35 2.9 13 23 110 - 750 100 1.00 1.00 1.0 23 43 115 36 - 125 0.41 0.26 3.8 43 53 110 - 750 83 1.00 1.00 1.0 53 63 110 - 1200 340 1.00 1.00 1.0 63 75 110 31 - 43 0.48 0.32 3.1

* Depth below existing mudline.

TABLE 5

Recommended Soil Design Parameters B-3

Typical Depth*

(ft) Total Unit

Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle (Degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

Lateral Soil Modulus

(pci)

Recommended Earth Pressure Coefficients

From To At Rest (Ko)

Active (Ka)

Passive (Kp)

0 4.5 90 - 100 4 1.00 1.00 1.0

4.5 13 105 29 - 30 0.52 0.35 2.9 13 18 100 - 500 65 0.56 0.39 2.6 18 23 110 31 - 40 0.48 0.32 3.1 23 33 100 28 - 16 0.53 0.36 2.8 33 48 105 28 - 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 48 58 110 31 - 45 0.48 0.32 3.1 58 63 115 34 - 96 0.44 0.28 3.5 63 68 105 28 - 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 68 75 120 36 - 125 0.41 0.26 3.8

* Depth below existing mudline.

4.3.2.4 Construction Techniques

Timber piles should be driven with an impact hammer delivering a minimum energy per blow as determined in accordance with the latest edition of the FDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction (SSRBC) (Section 455). The hammer should be operated according to manufacturer’s recommendations at all times. Pile driving should be as continuous as possible and should proceed without stopping over the last 10 feet of penetration. The hammer acceptance criteria should be established prior to construction once the type and size of hammer are furnished by the Contractor. With respect to vibration monitoring, we recommend strict adherence to the FDOT guidelines.

4.3.2.5 Hammer/Driving System

To help prevent over-driving, we recommend the final driving criteria be carefully specified with respect to the pile type, pile size, and hammer size. The pile driving hammer should therefore be properly selected with relation to the size, weight, and type of pile specified. The ratio of the pile hammer or ram weight (for air and diesel hammers) to the weight of the pile should not be less than 0.5 and should preferably be on the order of 0.75 to 1.0. Proper selection of the pile hammer based upon pile type and ram weight and the use of proper anvil and cushioning material and thickness should result in compressive and tensile driving stresses in the piles that are within tolerable magnitudes.

4.3.2.6 Timber Pile Driving Considerations

Timber piles shall be driven with a protective driving cap or ring when necessary to prevent brooming or splitting of the butt. When brooming or splitting occurs, such piles shall be cut back to solid wood before the final resistance to penetrations is measured. The timber piles on this project should be treated with a wood preservative, since it will be subjected to alternate wetting and drying. After driving to the necessary penetration, the broomed end is cut square and any exposed scars, as well as the fresh end cut, should be coated with a generous application of preservative.

Wood piles shall be driven until the required bearing has been continuously maintained for three feet, or to practical or absolute refusal. The pile contractor should use an appropriate pile driving formula to determine the driving criteria on this project. The number of blows required to achieve the required pile capacity should be determined by the appropriate pile driving formula prior to pile driving operations. Because soils vary in an unexpected manner, we recommend the pile driving operations be continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer or their authorized representative.

4.3.2.7 Protection of Existing Structures

Care should be exercised to avoid damaging any nearby structures while pile driving procedures are being performed. It is recommended occupants of nearby structures be notified prior to beginning these procedures and that pre- and post-driving surveys of these structures be performed if deemed necessary. We recommend following the guidelines of the most recent version of Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction of Section 455-1.1, "Protection of Existing Structures". The source of vibrations should cease if deemed detrimental to nearby structures. UES can provide these services if necessary.

4.3.2.8 Quality Control

An engineering technician familiar with the installation of driven piles into subsurface soil conditions similar to those at this site and acting under the direction and supervision of the geotechnical engineer should witness the installation of the remaining production piles. His duties should include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Keep an accurate record of pile installation and driving procedures.

2. Verify that all piles are installed to the proper driving resistance and to a depth indicative of the piles bearing in the desired bearing formation.

3. Confirm the pile driving equipment is operating properly.

4. Inspect the piles prior to installation for deflects and confirm that the piles are not damaged during installation.

4.4 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 hardscape subgrades by performing quality assurance tests on the placement of compacted structural fill. We can also provide concrete 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

PILE CAPACITY CURVES

BORING LOCATION PLAN

SOIL BORING PROFILES

BORING LOGS

KEY TO BORING LOGS

FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

0 5 10 15 20 25

Pi le

L en gt h

(f ee t)

Allowable Compression (tons)

Allowable Compressive Capacity - 9 inch Butt Timber Pile

B-1 - 9 Inch

B-2 - 9 inch

B-3 - 9 Inch

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Pi le

L en gt h

(f ee t)

Allowable Compression (tons)

Allowable Compressive Capacity - 12 inch Butt Timber Pile

B-1 - 12 Inch

B-2 - 12 inch

B-3 - 12 Inch

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Pi le

L en gt h

(f ee t)

Allowable Uplift (tons)

Allowable Uplift Capacity - 9 inch Butt Timber Pile

B-1 - 9 Inch

B-2 - 9 Inch

B-3 - 9 Inch

0 5 10 15 20 25

Pi le

L en gt h

(f ee t)

Allowable Uplift (tons)

Allowable Uplift Capacity - 12 inch Butt Timber Pile

B-1 - 12 Inch

B-2 - 12 Inch

B-3 - 12 Inch

WOH-1-1

1-3-6

6-5-4

1-2-3

4-3-4

2-3-3

2-2-3

2-2-2

3-4-5

8-16-24

1-1-1

1-1-1

WOH-2

1-3-3

3-4-4

23.1

28.2

31.9

67.7

42.3

9.2

10.4

96.5

Topsoil Very loose dark brown fine SAND with Silt and some Roots (SP-SM) Loose brown fine SAND (SP) Loose brown fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC) Very loose to loose brown Clayey fine SAND

(SC)

Loose to dense brown and gray fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC)

Very loose dark gray fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

Very soft to firm dark gray Clay (CH)

B-1

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

1.0

11/3/22

11/2/22

11/2/22

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

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

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

CLIENT:

-200

MC

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BORING LOG

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

SM/CS

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2200193.0000

1994922

A-1

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

4393 RAGGEEDY POINT ROAD

FLEMING ISLAND, FLORIDA

GAI CONSULTANTS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

B O

R

IN

G

L O

G

.2

.0

M

O C

C A

S

IN

S L

O U

G H

B O

A R

D W

A L

K .G

P J

U N

IE

N

G S

C .G

D T

/2

4-11-8

7-12-23

10-21-26

10-18-25

12-20-27

26.66.2

Medium dense brown Clayey fine SAND (SC)

Dense dark gray fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC)

B-1 SHEET:

SECTION:

2 of 2BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

-200

MC

DEPTH

(FT.)

BORING LOG

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2200193.0000

1994922

A-2

PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

4393 RAGGEEDY POINT ROAD

FLEMING ISLAND, FLORIDA

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

M

O C

C A

S

IN

S L

O U

G H

B O

A R

D W

A L

K .G

P J

U N

IE

N

G S

C .G

WOH

WOH

WOH

WOH-2-2

7-7-9-9

9-7-2-2

1-2-2

3-5-3

7-10-15

12-16-20

9-15-18

7-8-13

2-2-3

2-3-3

34 2232.8

24.9

41.0

5.8

Very loose dark brown PEAT (PT)

Loose to medium dense brown and gray fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC)

Very loose to loose brown Clayey fine SAND

(SC)

Medium dense to dense gray fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC)

Firm to stiff dark gray CLAY (CH)

B-2

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

12/14/22

12/14/22

12/14/22

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

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

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

CLIENT:

-200

MC

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BORING LOG

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

NICK

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2200193.0000

1994922

A-3

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

4393 RAGGEEDY POINT ROAD

FLEMING ISLAND, FLORIDA

GAI CONSULTANTS

Water depth at the time of drilling : 2.0 feet

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

M

O C

C A

S

IN

S L

O U

G H

B O

A R

D W

A L

K .G

P J

U N

IE

N

G S

C .G

4-4-4

3-5-5

5-5-10

4-5-8

5-8-10

46.072.1

Medium dense dark gray fine SAND with Clay

(SP-SC)

B-2 SHEET:

SECTION:

2 of 2BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

-200

MC

DEPTH

(FT.)

BORING LOG

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2200193.0000

1994922

A-4

PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

4393 RAGGEEDY POINT ROAD

FLEMING ISLAND, FLORIDA

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

M

O C

C A

S

IN

S L

O U

G H

B O

A R

D W

A L

K .G

P J

U N

IE

N

G S

C .G

WOH

WOH

WOH-8-6-6

4-4-5-6

3-5-3-3

2-1-3

6-6-7

2-2-1

5-3-2

1-1-2

1-1

2-2-3

7-8-11

NP NP

27.5

27.0

32.7

6.9

24.3

13.4

Very loose PEAT (PT)

Loose to medium dense dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

Very loose gray Clayey fine SAND (SC)

Very loose to medium dense gray-brown fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC)

Very loose to loose dark gray Clayey fine SAND

(SC)

Medium dense brown to dark gray fine SAND with Clay (SP-SC)

B-3

DATE STARTED:

DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):

SHEET:

SECTION:

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

12/9/22

12/9/22

12/9/22

BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

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

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

CLIENT:

-200

MC

DATE OF READING:

DEPTH

(FT.)

BORING LOG

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

NICK

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2200193.0000

1994922

A-5

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

REMARKS:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

4393 RAGGEEDY POINT ROAD

FLEMING ISLAND, FLORIDA

GAI CONSULTANTS

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

Water depth at the time of drilling : 0.5 feet

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

M

O C

C A

S

IN

S L

O U

G H

B O

A R

D W

A L

K .G

P J

U N

IE

N

G S

C .G

97/10"

5-5-7

9-12-14

4-2-2

12-14-19

25-47-50/4"

32.814.9

Very loose dark gray clayey fine SAND (SC)

Dense to very dense gray fine SAND with Clay

(SP-SC)

B-3 SHEET:

SECTION:

2 of 2BORING DESIGNATION:

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LL PI

K

(FT./

DAY)

ORG.

CONT.

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

-200

MC

DEPTH

(FT.)

BORING LOG

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

(BLOWS/

FT.)

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

PAGE:

0930.2200193.0000

1994922

A-6

PROJECT: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

4393 RAGGEEDY POINT ROAD

FLEMING ISLAND, FLORIDA

B O

R

IN

G

L

.2

.0

M

O C

C A

S

IN

S L

O U

G H

B O

A R

D W

A L

K .G

P J

U N

IE

N

G S

C .G

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.

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.

Atterberg Limits

The Atterberg Limits consist of the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plastic Limit (PL). The LL and PL were determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 4318. The LL is the water content of the material denoting the boundary between the liquid and plastic states.

The PL is the water content denoting the boundary between the plastic and semi-solid states.

The Plasticity Index (PI) is the range of water content over which a soil behaves plastically and is denoted numerically by as the difference between the LL and the PL. 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.

APPENDIX B

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS

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…