Y25-787_Geotech_Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL-STUDY REPORT

SIPLIN ROAD POND 6749 RETROFITS

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

AEA PROJECT No. 201619-2

Antillian Engineering Associates, Inc.

3309 Bartlett Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32811

(407) 422-1441

ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

201619-2 Siplin Road Pond 6749 Retrofits July 20, 2022

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Orange County Department of Public Works (“OCDPW”) has planned drainage retrofits for an existing stormwater pond along Siplin Road (“Pond 6749”). It is our understanding that the pond had been designed as a dry pond with underdrains but it no longer functions as intended. Its approximate location is shown on Figure 1. OCDPW assigned this project to TLP Consultants, Inc. of Orlando, Florida (“TLP”) under Orange County Continuing Engineering Services Contract Y16-900B. TLP retained Antillian Engineering Associates, Inc. to conduct a geotechnical-engineering study for the retrofit design.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

For general information about the project vicinity, we reviewed the United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) quadrangle topographic map for that area, and the United Stated Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (“SCS”) Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida. For project-specific information, we examined an electronic copy that TLP provided of the original construction drawings for Siplin Road dated December 16, 1985 (the “original drawings”).

The USGS topographic map showed the project vicinity as gently-sloping terrain at the eastern edge of a low knoll that was almost surrounded by freshwater marsh and wetlands. We were able to identify State Road 50, Florida’s Turnpike, State Road 545, and Siplin Road on the map. The ground surface on the knoll was mapped just above the Elevation 100 feet NGVD (“El.+100”) contour. The approximate pond area was situated beside a broad area of wetlands that extended north and east. The edge of the wetlands was mapped just below the El.+100 contour. A portion of the USGS map that covered this area is reproduced in this report as Figure 1.

The SCS Soil Survey sheet that covered the project area reported the main soil-units in the area as Smyrna fine sand and Basinger fine sand. Samsula-Basinger-Hontoon association was mapped in the adjoining wetlands. Tavares-Millhopper fine sand was mapped near the top of the knoll.

Smyrna fine sand is found on broad, low-lying plains throughout Orange County. This soil unit is reported to be nearly level to level, and poorly drained, with seasonal high groundwater levels within a foot of the ground surface in natural, undisturbed areas. Basinger fine sand is found in wetlands, marshes, broad drainage areas, natural depressions, and other low-lying areas. These soils are nearly level to level, and very poorly drained. They are often submerged for most of the year, sometimes by as much as two feet during the rainy season. These soils have a surficial layer of organic material about a foot deep. The surficial organic layer in Samsula-Basinger-Hontoon soils may be more than four feet deep. Tavares-Millhopper fine sand is found in slightly higher areas in the terrain. This soil is moderately well drained, with seasonal high groundwater level between three feet and six feet below the natural, undisturbed ground surface. A portion of the SCS Soil Survey sheet that covered the project area is reproduced in this report as Figure 2.

The original drawings included sheets that showed two stormwater ponds. The pond at the eastern end of Siplin Road (“east retention pond”) had been built by impounding a section of the sloping bank beside the wetlands with an earth fill embankment. The crest of the embankment was shown at Elevation 105 and the pond bottom was shown at Elevation 100. Existing grade on the pond site ranged from Elevation +105 at the southwestern corner to Elevation +99 on the opposite corner, at the edge of the wetlands. The plan also showed a “6" underdrain around [the] perimeter” of the pond bottom.

FIELD EXPLORATIONS

AEA staff developed a preliminary, exploration-location plan using an electronic copy of the east retention pond drawing and Google EarthTM imagery as references. We stablished two auger-boring locations on the banks of the pond, “PB-1” near the southwestern corner of the pond and “PB-2” near its northeastern corner.

We visited the pond site to prepare for the field explorations and to obtain general information about the surface conditions. We marked the boring locations with paint for underground-utility location in accordance with Florida statutes, and staked them for identification by the field crew.

The field crew drilled the borings to 20 feet on October 25, 2021 using continuous-flight augers powered by a rotary-drill rig, in accordance with ASTM D1452. They described the soils recovered on the auger flights, selected representative samples, sealed them in airtight containers, measured the encountered depth to groundwater in the boreholes, and recorded their observations and measurements on field logs. They backfilled the completed boreholes with soil. We cannot confirm that the boring locations were surveyed, so the locations presented and discussed in this report should be considered as approximate.

LABORATORY TESTING

A geotechnical engineer examined the recovered soil samples in our laboratory, confirmed the descriptions on the field logs, examined the soils using visual-manual methods in accordance with ASTM D2488, and developed a representation of the soil stratigraphy at each auger-boring location. The engineer selected representative specimens for laboratory testing, which consisted of six soil-gradation analyses. We conducted the tests in accordance with applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) methods. Test results are presented on the Report of Tests sheet, the Summary of Laboratory Test Results table, and the graphs in Appendix A.

[END OF SECTION]

SURFACE CONDITIONS

As discussed in the AVAILABLE INFORMATION section of this report, Pond 6749 was near the eastern end of Siplin Road. It was fenced and secured with a locking gate. The ground surface on the pond banks was nearly-level to gently sloping. The height of the embankment impounding the pond ranged from near zero at the southwestern corner of the pond to about five feet near its northeastern corner. The water surface in the pond appeared to be about three feet below the ground surface on the banks. The embankment crest and side slopes were covered with well-maintained turf grass. We saw a few large trees on neighboring properties and in the wetlands area beyond the pond-perimeter fence.

Another stormwater pond was situated on the school property opposite from Pond 6749. The side of the pond that faced Siplin Road was impounded by an earth embankment about six feet high.

On the day of our initial site visit in September 2021, the unpaved ground surface was wet at the toe of the embankment and on the side of Siplin Road.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The stratigraphy, soil types, and groundwater levels described below are based on the results of the borings and laboratory testing. We classified recovered soil samples using visual-manual methods and a limited number of laboratory tests, and grouped them into three, general soil-types or “strata.” The strata descriptions \are general. Subsurface characteristics at each boring location are shown on the Report of Auger Borings sheet and Roadway Soils Survey sheet in Appendix A.

Stratum 1 Stratum 1 soils were dark yellowish-brown, dark grayish brown, and dark gray sands that contained small amounts of silt. These soils were uppermost in PB-2, and varied in color in ways that did not appear to be naturally caused. The thickness was about six feet. Soil-gradation analysis of one sample indicated a fines content (fraction by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) of 10 percent. Based on visual-manual examinations and the laboratory testing result, we classified Stratum 1 soils as “A-3” using American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) Designation M-145. Because of their position in the embankment and the observed variations in color, we characterized these soils as “possible fill.”

Stratum 2 Stratum 2 soils were beneath the possible fill in PB-2, and uppermost in PB-1. They were dark gray, dark grayish brown, brown, and dark brown sands that contained small amounts of silt.

Encountered thicknesses were about five feet. Soil-gradation analysis of two samples indicated fines contents of 9 percent and 12 percent. Based on visual-manual examinations and laboratory testing results, we classified Stratum 2 soils as “A-3” and “A-2-4” using AASHTO Designation M-145.

Stratum 3 Stratum 3 soils were brown, grayish brown, light brownish gray, yellowish brown, and yellow to pale yellow sands that contained clay. These soils had a plastic texture, as defined using manual-examination methods. Encountered thicknesses were about ten feet and about 15 feet. We could not confirm actual thicknesses because we had terminated the boreholes at the authorized depth before completely penetrating these soils. Soil-gradation analysis of three samples indicated fines contents that ranged from 23 percent to 39 percent. Based on visual-manual examinations and the laboratory testing results, we classified Stratum 4 soils as “A-2-4” and “A-4” using AASHTO Designation M-145.

We encountered groundwater in the boreholes at a depth of about six feet (in PB-2) and about ten feet (in PB-1) below the existing ground surface. Details of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are shown on the Report of Auger Borings sheet in Appendix A.

[END OF SECTION]

GENERAL COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS

The following assessments are based on our review of the available information, the findings of our field explorations and our limited laboratory-testing results, our limited understanding of the planned pond retrofit, and our experience with similar projects and similar subsurface conditions.

We prepared this report for the exclusive use of TLP and OCDPW to assess the site subsurface conditions for this project only. It should not be used for other purposes, even at the same exploration locations, without consulting us.

Soils are natural materials, so variations in composition and other physical characteristics are normal and should be expected. Because of natural variations in the depth and composition of soils and the broad spacing between the borings that we drilled for this study, materials other than those we encountered during our explorations (including possibly unfavorable or unsuitable materials) may be encountered during earthwork and should be anticipated.

DISCUSSION OF ENOUNTERED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The boreholes that we drilled for this study encountered possible fill materials in the embankment and an apparently natural soil profile that consisted of surficial sands underlain by clayey sands to depths exceeding 20 feet. We designated the soils as “Stratum 1” through “Stratum 3” and we classified them using AASHTO Designation M-145 as “A-3,” “A-2-4,” and “A-4.” Descriptions and AASHTO designations for each stratum are presented on the Report of Tests Sheet, and on the Report of Auger Borings sheet in Appendix A.

We encountered groundwater six feet and ten feet below existing ground surface at the boring locations. These differences in depth may be due, at least in part, to possible differences in the ground surface elevation, as well as stratification, and drainage characteristics of the near-surface soils. We should also point out that the groundwater surface is rarely, if ever, level. In addition, groundwater levels can change from day to day (and sometimes more quickly) in response to rainfall and other influences. As a result, the depths to groundwater that we reported should be used with due consideration for those and other possible variations.

Because the ground surface level around the pond bank appeared to be about the same, the observed difference in groundwater depth suggests that there may be some background seepage flow from areas at higher elevations to the west and southwest of the pond site towards the wetland area. Exfiltration from the pond on the opposite side of Siplin Road also may be occurring.

In our professional opinion, the soil types and groundwater levels we encountered are favorable for the anticipated earthwork. Conventional earthmoving equipment should be able to work the soils that the boreholes penetrated but bidders should be advised to select equipment that can still operate effectively even if less favorable conditions are encountered during earthwork. Bidders should be advised to anticipate the need for a temporary-dewatering system so that the earthwork can be conducted in the dry. Excavations should be dewatered in accordance with OCDPW specifications.

EARTHWORK

Before starting work, sedimentation-control measures should be put in place to reduce erosion, or deposition of transported material. Measures should also be taken to maintain groundwater levels in the adjacent wetlands at the levels that exist at the start of construction.

The ground surface and side slopes of the embankment within the limits of construction should be cleared or “stripped” of all vegetation, roots, topsoil, debris, near-surface organic soils, and other unfavorable materials in accordance with OCDPW specifications. A minimum depth of one foot of clearing and grubbing should be anticipated overall. Greater depths of excavation are likely because of the trees and possibility of deeper organic soils in the adjacent wetland areas.

Existing pond side-slopes where fill will be placed should be carefully cleared and examined before being terraced or “benched” to provide level surfaces for receiving the fill. We did not encounter trash, debris, or other unsuitable materials at the borehole locations, but some places within the project limits were wooded, so unfavorable or unsuitable materials may not have been visible during our explorations. In addition, unknown persons may have discarded debris or other unsuitable materials within the project limits after we completed our field explorations. Bidders should be cautioned that such materials may exist, and to be prepared to handle unsuitable materials and address other difficult site conditions at no additional cost to Orange County.

Once the work area has been cleared to the satisfaction of the OCDPW on-site representative, the exposed soils should be examined by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative. These areas should be checked for soft or yielding conditions by probing with a smooth, steel rod. Any loose, soft, or yielding soils so detected should be removed and replaced with compacted fill, or otherwise treated as recommended by the OCDPW on-site representative as advised by the examining geotechnical engineer.

As discussed earlier in this report, we grouped the soils that we encountered into three types or strata, and defined each one based on its combination of properties. Predominant characteristics for earthwork are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 (A-3 and A-2-4) soils are considered “select” materials by customary earthwork standards. They can be left in place after satisfactory probing and can be worked as embankment fill as long as they meet the requirements indicated in the OCDPW specifications.

Stratum 3 (A-2-4 and A-4) soils may be left in place beneath the work areas as long as they are not wet, soft, or yielding. Their suitability for use as embankment fill or trench backfill is limited by a tendency to hold excess moisture, which can make them troublesome to work. If possible, these soils should not be used as embankment fill or backfill if excavated during earthwork.

Imported fill for the embankment should consist of granular, inert, inorganic, select material, preferably with a fines content less than 10 percent. Fill materials with higher fines content may be used if allowed by OCDPW standards. Fill should be placed, moisture-conditioned as needed, compacted, and tested in accordance with the OCDPW specifications.

Siplin Road Pond 6749 Retrofits July 20, 2022

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

During the rainy season in Florida, groundwater levels are generally higher than those observed at other times of the year. The extent of that variation depends on factors such as, but not limited to, terrain; intensity, duration, and frequency of rainfall; hydrogeologic properties of the soils; and the presence and proximity of artificial-drainage facilities.

Because of the time of year at which we conducted this study, we do not expect the groundwater levels to become more elevated under the normal, cyclic influence of seasonal rainfall than those we encountered. We observed artificial-drainage facilities nearby, so those facilities are likely to change the natural drainage characteristics of the project area. Based on the groundwater levels observed in the boreholes, we recommend setting the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels at the same level as the encountered levels for the pond-retrofit design, with due consideration for variations in topography, and subsurface conditions that can be expected within the project limits.

Encountered groundwater levels and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels are shown on the Report of Auger Borings sheets in Appendix A.

LIMITATIONS

This report presents an assessment of the subsurface conditions we encountered, using customary, accepted geotechnical-engineering procedures for site characterization in central Florida. We did not examine or test any recovered soil samples in any way for chemical composition or for potential environmental hazards.

We confined this study to the zone of soil likely to be affected by the proposed construction. We did not address the potential of surface expression of geologic activity such as sinkholes, which requires a more extensive range of services than those performed for this study.

Because of the natural limitations inherent in working below the ground surface, a geotechnical engineer cannot predict and address all possible problems. During construction, geotechnical challenges not addressed in this report may arise. We included the bulletin Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report in Appendix B to help explain what one can reasonably expect from a geotechnical-engineering report. We also presented information in Appendix C to discuss the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical-engineering report.

FIGURES

APPENDIX A

DESIGN PLANS FOR:

BY DESCRIPTIONDATE

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT NO.

CIP####

BY DESCRIPTIONDATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAME

POND 6749 RETROFIT

REPORT OF TESTS

S,P/,1 RO$' PO1' ���� RETROF,T

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROAD NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJECT NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SUBMITTED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

ORGANIC CONTENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONTENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

MOISTURE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

STRATUM

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

LBR

AutoCAD SHX Text

VALUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ORGANIC

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO. OF

AutoCAD SHX Text

TESTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

CLASSIFICATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

CORROSION TEST RESULTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

2. SOIL BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND REPRESENT SOIL STRATA AT EACH BORING LOCATION ONLY. ANY SUBSOIL CONNECTING LINES

AutoCAD SHX Text SHOWN ARE FOR ESTIMATING EARTHWORK ONLY AND DO NOT INDICATE ACTUAL STRATUM LIMITS. SUBSURFACE VARIATIONS BETWEEN BORINGS

AutoCAD SHX Text

1. THE SYMBOL "--", IF PRESENT, REPRESENTS UNMEASURED SOIL PARAMETERS.

AutoCAD SHX Text

5. PLASTIC MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED IF ENCOUNTERED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STANDARD PLAN 120-001.

AutoCAD SHX Text

6. ALL MATERIAL USED IN EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STANDARD PLAN 120-002.

AutoCAD SHX Text

7. SUBSURFACE VARIATIONS BETWEEN BORINGS SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED AS INDICATED IN SECTION 2-4 OF THE FDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

AutoCAD SHX Text

- ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

AutoCAD SHX Text 4.

AutoCAD SHX Text

- ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT THE TIME OF SURVEY

AutoCAD SHX Text 3.

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTES

AutoCAD SHX Text #100

AutoCAD SHX Text

MESH

AutoCAD SHX Text 58-63

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS (% PASSING)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 90-92

AutoCAD SHX Text 93-98

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO. OF

AutoCAD SHX Text

TESTS

AutoCAD SHX Text #10

AutoCAD SHX Text

MESH

AutoCAD SHX Text

MESH

AutoCAD SHX Text #40

AutoCAD SHX Text

MESH

AutoCAD SHX Text #60

AutoCAD SHX Text 9-12

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ATTERBERG LIMITS (%)

AutoCAD SHX Text

MESH

AutoCAD SHX Text #200

AutoCAD SHX Text

TESTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO. OF

AutoCAD SHX Text

PLASTICITY

AutoCAD SHX Text

LIQUID

AutoCAD SHX Text

LIMIT

AutoCAD SHX Text

INDEX

AutoCAD SHX Text

AASHTO

AutoCAD SHX Text

GROUP

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESCRIPTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

RESISTIVITY

AutoCAD SHX Text ohm-cm

AutoCAD SHX Text ppm

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHLORIDES

AutoCAD SHX Text

SULFATES

AutoCAD SHX Text ppm

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

(SUBSTRUCTURE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONCRETE

AutoCAD SHX Text pH

AutoCAD SHX Text

STEEL

AutoCAD SHX Text

ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOWNSHIP:

AutoCAD SHX Text

RANGE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SECTION:

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROADWAY SOILS SURVEY

AutoCAD SHX Text

REPORT OF TESTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

SIPLIN ROAD POND 6749 RETROFIT

AutoCAD SHX Text

ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

AutoCAD SHX Text

AEA PROJ. NO. 201619-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

SURVEYED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text 11/15/2021

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE REPORTED:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SURVEY ENDS STA. NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text

SURVEY BEGINS STA. NO.:

AutoCAD SHX Text 10/25/2021

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE OF SURVEY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

22 SOUTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

ENVIRONMENTAL

AutoCAD SHX Text

27 EAST

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED AS INDICATED IN SECTION 2-4 OF THE FDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 40-88

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 59-93

AutoCAD SHX Text 89-98

AutoCAD SHX Text 23-39

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text N.A.

AutoCAD SHX Text N.A.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, DARK GRAYISH BROWN, AND DARK

AutoCAD SHX Text A-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

DARK GRAY, DARK GRAYISH BROWN, BROWN TO VERY DARK

AutoCAD SHX Text A-3, AutoCAD SHX Text

GRAYISH BROWN, YELLOWISH BROWN, LIGHT BROWNISH GRAY

AutoCAD SHX Text A-2-4, AutoCAD SHX Text

AND PALE YELLOW CLAYEY SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRAY SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

BROWN SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text A-2-4

AutoCAD SHX Text A-4

DESIGN PLANS FOR:

BY DESCRIPTIONDATE

SHEET

NO.

PROJECT NO.

CIP####

BY DESCRIPTIONDATE

REVISIONS

PROJECT NAME

POND 6749 RETROFIT

REPORT OF AUGER BORINGS

SIPLIN ROAD POND 6749 RETROFIT

NTS

PB-1

PB-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

DEPTH IN FEET

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

DEPTH IN FEET

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FT.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PB-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION:

AutoCAD SHX Text

104 APPROX.

AutoCAD SHX Text (10-25-21)

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text 10/25/21

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FT.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PB-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION:

AutoCAD SHX Text (10-25-21)

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text 10/25/21

AutoCAD SHX Text

DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, DARK GRAYISH BROWN, AND DARK

AutoCAD SHX Text

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL

AutoCAD SHX Text

AASHTO SOIL

AutoCAD SHX Text A-3

AutoCAD SHX Text

STRATUM

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DESCRIPTION

AutoCAD SHX Text

DARK GRAY, DARK GRAYISH BROWN, BROWN TO VERY DARK

AutoCAD SHX Text A-3, A-2-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRAYISH BROWN, YELLOWISH BROWN, LIGHT BROWNISH GRAY

AutoCAD SHX Text A-2-4, A-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AND PALE YELLOW CLAYEY SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

104 APPROX.

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRAY SAND

AutoCAD SHX Text

BROWN SAND

PB-1

2.5

Brown sand with silt

100.0 98.3 90.4 58.2 8.6 2 A-3

PB-1

7.0

Brown sand

100.0 93.2 91.6 63.4 11.8 2 A-2-4

PB-1

9.0

Grayish brown clayey sand

100.0 98.5 93.3 76.3 38.5 21.1 3 A-4

PB-1

16.0

Pale yellow clayey sand

100.0 98.1 93.5 88.3 23.9 3 A-2-4

PB-2

5.5

Dark yellowish brown sand with silt

100.0 99.9 98.2 90.4 58.5 10.2 1 A-3

PB-2

11.0

Grayish brown clayey sand

100.0 89.4 58.6 39.7 22.8 3 A-2-4

ANTILLIAN

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Manager:

Location:

Project Description:

Project: Job Number: Sheet of 1Siplin Road Pond 6749 Retrofit 201619-2 1

Boring

Depth

Sample Description

#100

Fines

#200

Water Content

LL PI

k

(ft/day) #4

Organic Content

AASHTO USCS

Client:

Summary Of Laboratory Test Results

#10 #40 #60 No.

Stratum

0.0010.010.1110100

P E R C E N T

F I N E R

B Y

W E I G H T

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70100140200

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

coarse fine coarse medium fine

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu

D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

GRADATION CURVES

PB-1

PB-1

PB-1

PB-1

PB-2

2.5

7.0

9.0

16.0

5.5

Brown sand with silt

Brown sand

Grayish brown clayey sand

Pale yellow clayey sand

Dark yellowish brown sand with silt

0.87

0.87

0.86

2.0

2.0

2.1

PB-1

PB-1

PB-1

PB-1

PB-2

2.5

7.0

9.0

16.0

5.5

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

4.75

0.101

0.096

0.080

0.100

0.0764 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

91.4

88.2

61.5

76.1

89.8

8.6

11.8

38.5

23.9

10.2

0.15

0.14

0.11

0.11

0.15

PROJECT JOB NO.

DATE

Siplin Road Pond 6749 Retrofit 201619-2 11/15/21

ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Orlando, Florida, USA

0.0010.010.1110100

P E R C E N T

F I N E R

B Y

W E I G H T

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER

6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70100140200

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

coarse fine coarse medium fine

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu

D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

GRADATION CURVES

PB-2 11.0 Grayish brown clayey sand

PB-2 11.0 2.00 0.101 0.0 77.2 22.80.26

PROJECT JOB NO.

DATE

Siplin Road Pond 6749 Retrofit 201619-2 11/15/21

ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ANTILLIAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Orlando, Florida, USA

APPENDIX B

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:

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;

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. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

APPENDIX C