The URL can be used to link to this page

Geotechnical Investigation Report McDonald's LC 9-2528 Clearwater 12 18 2013UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 2871 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida UES Project No. 0830.1300588 PREPARED FOR: McDonald's Corporation 10150 Highland Manor Drive, Suite 470 Tampa, Florida 33610 PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 December 18, 2013 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach - Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota - Miami St. Augustine • Panama City - Fort Pierce • Leesburg • Tampa - West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA UNIVERSAL LOCATIONS • Atlanta • Daytona Beach ENGINEERING SCIENCES 91 r Fort Myers • Fort Pierce Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Gainesville • Jacksonville Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection • Kissimmee Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration • Leesburg • Miami • Ocala • Orlando (Headquarters) • Palm Coast • Panama City • Pensacola December 18, 2013 • Rockledge • Sarasota • Tampa McDonald's Corporation • West Palm Beach 10150 Highland Manor Drive, Suite 470 Tampa, Florida 33610 Attention: Jenny Joiner Reference Geotechnical Exploration McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 2871 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida UES Project No. 0830.1300588 Dear Ms. Joiner: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has completed a geotechnical exploration on the above - referenced site in Clearwater, Florida. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal #0830.1113.7, dated November 15, 2013 and authorized by you. This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, geotechnical design recommendations, and general construction and site preparation considerations. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association with McDonald's Corporation. 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, Certifi ate of Authorization No. 549 4 L_ -- Dusan Jovanovic Senior Project Manager 3 — Client INC. ow11111111flill, Oz �li Surendra Sdgi, Geotechn l pager * * _= Florida Lice Is o.qW=OF .•' Date 17, •a p... •' �,r(�j�" SIONAL 9802 Palm River Road, Tampa, Florida 33619 Ph (813) 740 -8506 Fax (813) 740 -8706 www.UniversalEngineering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................. ..............................1 2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES ..................................................... ..............................1 2.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................... ..............................1 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ......................................... ............................... 2 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING......... ......................................................... ............................... 2 3.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................. ............................... 3 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................... ..............................3 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS... .................................................................... 3.2.1 SOIL SURVEY ............................................................................................... ..............................3 3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS .............................................................................................. ..............................3 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... ..............................4 4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................... ..............................4 4.2 GROUNDWATER .......................................................................,....... ..............................4 4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB .................................. ............................... 5 4.3.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION ...................... ._ ......... ....................................................... ---5 4.3.2 FLOOR SLABS ................ .......................--------------- „_.............. ................................................ ._.. -5 4.3.3 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE CONTROL. ................... ..................................... ..............................5 4.3.4 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT ................................................. ..............................5 4.4 PAVEMENT SECTIONS ..................................................................... ..............................6 4.4.1 ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................. ..............................6 4.4.2 LAYER COMPONENTS ................................................................................. ..............................6 4.4.3 STABILIZED SUBGRADE .............................................................................. ..............................6 4AABASE COURSE ............................................................................................. ..............................7 4.4.5 FLEXIBLE SURFACE COURSE. ... ................. ....... -- ...... 7 4.4.6 SITE PREPARATION FOR NEW PAVEMENT AREAS ................................ ..............................8 4.4.7 EXISTING PAVEMENT ................ ............................... ................ ..,......,.......... ..,...8 4.4.8 RIGID PAVEMENT OPTION......................................................................... ...................... 4.4.9 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER-......... ................ ............ I ....... 10 4.4.10 CURBING.. ........... ........ ....... I ..................... ... .... -10 4.4.11 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ................................................. ............................... .....10 4.5 RETENTION PONDS ......................................................................... .............................10 4.5.1 DRI TESTING ................................................................................................ .............................10 4.52 FILL SOIL SUITABILITY ............................................................................... .............................11 4.6 RETAINING WALLS .......................................................................... .............................11 4.7 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR SINKHOLE DEVELOPMENT ... .............................12 4.8 SITE PREPARATION ......................................................................... .............................14 4.9 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES .......................................... .............................15 5.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... .............................16 u LIST OF APPENDICES SITELOCATION MAP .................................................................................. ..............................A SITEAERIAL PHOTOGRAPH... ................................................ ................................................ A SITETOPOGRAPHIC MAP ......................................................................... ............................. -A SCSSOIL SURVEY MAP ............................................................................. ..............................A BORING LOCATION PLAN ................. --- ..................................... - ......................................... B BORINGLOGS ............................... ........................................................................................... B SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART.................. ................................................ ..............................B ASFE IMPORTANT GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION .............................. ............................... C CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS ...................................................... ............................... C u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 Page UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTIO 1.1 GENERAL In this report we present the results of our geotechnical exploration on the site of the proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528, located at 2871 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. This report contains the results of our study, an engineering interpretation of the subsurface data obtained with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and our recommendations for geotechnical design and general site preparation. Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal #0830.1113.7, dated November 15, 2013 and authorized by you. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 2871 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Based on the information provided to us, we understand that a new restaurant building will be constructed with associated parking, drive - through and trash enclosure areas. In addition a stormwater management area was anticipated at the south side of the subject parcel. We were provided with a copy of the preliminary site layout with proposed boring locations for use in planning our exploration. No preliminary design plans, grading plans, or anticipated structural loads were available for our analyses. We have assumed that construction will proceed on or slightly above the existing grade. Further, we have assumed that loads on continuous footings will be 3 kips per lineal foot or less, and loads on individual column footings will be 30 kips or less. Our geotechnical recommendations are based upon the above assumptions and considerations. If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, please inform Universal Engineering Sciences so that we may review our recommendations, and make revisions as needed. A general location map of the project area appears in Appendix A: Site Location Map. Also included in Appendix A for your reference are a Site Aerial Photograph, USGS Site Topographic Map and SCS Soil Survey Map. 2.0 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGIES 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of our services was: to explore the general subsurface conditions at the site using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings; u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 2 to interpret and review the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed construction as it was described to us; and to provide geotechnical engineering design information and recommendations, and general recommendations for site preparation. 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. 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions across the site were explored with a total of twelve (12) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. Within the proposed building area, a total of four (4) SPT borings designated B -1 through B -4 were completed. Borings B -1, B -2 and B -4 were extended to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring B -3 was extended to a depth of 55 feet below grade. One (1) SPT boring designated B -5 was performed to a depth of 10.5 feet within the proposed Trash Enclosure Area. In the proposed pavement areas, five (5) SPT borings designated B -6 through B -10, were advanced, each to a depth of 7.5 feet bgs. Two borings, designated B -11 and B -12 were advanced within the proposed stormwater pond area to a depth of 15 feet. These borings were advanced using the rotary wash method, and samples were collected while performing the Standard Penetration Test at regular intervals. We performed the SPT test in general accordance with ASTM D -1586 guidelines. However, at depths of 10 feet or less we sampled continuously in order to detect slight variations in the soil profile. In general, a standard split - barrel sampler (split- spoon) is driven into the soil using a 140 -pound hammer free - falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after first seating it 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or SPT -N value. This value is used as an index to soil strength and consistency. The top 4.5 feet of all the SPT borings were advanced using a hand auger. This technique is a part of our safety procedure due to proximity of underground utility lines that may not have been located by One - Call Sunshine. Consider the indicated locations and depths to be approximate. Our drilling crew located the borings based upon estimated distances and taped measurements from existing site features. If more precise location and elevation data are desired, a registered professional land surveyor should be retained to locate the borings and determine their ground surface elevations. The Boring Location Plan is presented in Appendix B. Unless other arrangements are agreed upon in writing, UES will store recovered soil samples for no more than 60 calendar days from the date of the report. 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified by our technical staff. No additional laboratory testing was deemed necessary at this time. Itp Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS Page 3 At the start of our geotechnical exploration, we reviewed aerial photographs available from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's office and TerraServer USA, USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Pinellas County for relevant information about the site. At the time of our exploration, the subject site was occupied by an old Village Inn building with associated parking and pavement areas. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.2.1_ SOIL SURVEY According to SCS, there is only one native surficial soil group underlying this site. A summary of selected properties for the identified soil group on the site is included below in Table 1. The location of this group can be observed on the SCS Soil Survey Map provided in the Appendix A. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SOIL INFORMATION Soil Map Unit 8 Hydrologic � Water Table SHWT Swell Name Soil Group Type Depth potential 17 - Myakka I B/D I Apparent 1 0.5 — 1.5 1 Low Corrosion Risk Steel I Concrete High I High Based on visual observation of shallow subsurface soils, we believe the site may have been raised in the past with sandy fill material. Therefore, the subject site should be considered "Urban Land ". 3.2.2 SOIL BORINGS The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix B: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. Refer to Appendix B: Soils Classification Chart, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. The general subsurface soil profile on the site, based on the soil boring information, is described below. For more detailed information, please refer to the boring logs. The subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the boring locations generally began with a layer of asphaltic concrete pavement consisting of 1 to 2 inches of asphalt and 4 to 6 inches of limerock base underlain by sand, clayey sand and sandy clay (SP, SC and CH) to a maximum explored depth of 55 feet below the existing grade. The surficial sands extend to approximate depths of 3 to 6 feet below grade, and are followed by clayey sand and sandy clay. The provided soil profile is very general in nature and represents a composite of soil conditions and some deviations were encountered. The individual boring logs should be reviewed for detailed soil conditions. u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 4 The shallow water table was encountered at approximate depths ranging from 4 to 5.8 feet at our boring locations. The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times noted. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels and the presence of deleterious materials, at other locations on the site may differ significantly from conditions which, in the opinion of UES, exist at the sampling locations. Note, too, that the passage of time may affect conditions at the sampling locations. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL In this section of the report we present our geotechnical design recommendations, general site preparation recommendations and information pertaining to the construction related services UES can provide. Our recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction as it was described to us, and our stated assumptions. If the structural loads or site layout differ from those assumed or described to us, we should be retained to review the new or updated information and amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during constructions that were not encountered in the test borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations. 4.2 GROUNDWATER Based upon our visual inspection of the recovered soil samples, review of information obtained from SWFWMD and the USDA Soil Survey of Pinellas County, and our knowledge of local and regional hydrogeology, our best estimate is that the seasonal high groundwater level could be between 2.5 to 3 feet below the existing grade at the test boring locations, on average. It should be noted that the estimated SHWT does not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed this level in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration exceed the normally anticipated amounts, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimate. Also, future development around the site could alter surface runoff and drainage characteristics, and cause our seasonal high estimate to be exceeded. We therefore recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site during construction. Further, we recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. Finally, we recommend all foundation and pavement grades account for the seasonal high groundwater conditions. Based upon the estimated seasonal high ground water table and the necessary site preparation, temporary dewatering may be required during construction operation only in deep excavations. We recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 24 inches below all earthwork and compaction surfaces. We recommend that the groundwater level be verified immediately prior to construction. F!"p Proposed McDonald's Store UC 9 -2528 Page 5 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB 4.3.1 BUILDING FOUNDATION The soil strata encountered at the SPT boring locations should be adaptable to support structures having loading conditions within our stated assumptions using conventional shallow foundations, provided the upper soils to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the footing are densified to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (MPMDD) (ASTM D- 1557) prior to foundation construction. We recommend using shallow strip or spread foundations sized to exert a maximum soil bearing stress of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). All individual foundations should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade (finished surrounding grade, for example). Maintain minimum foundation widths of 24 inches for continuous strip footings, and 30 inches for isolated column footings, even though the maximum allowable soil bearing stress may not be developed in all cases. We estimate that foundations so designed will have a minimum factor of safety of two against bearing capacity failure. 4.3.2 FLOOR SLABS For the floor slabs, we recommend using a standard concrete slab -on -grade system. A fibermesh mix should be used to control thermal cracking. Optionally, welded wire mesh could be used for crack control. If welded wire is used, we recommend using flat wire instead of rolled. Normal weight concrete having a 28 -day compressive strength (f'c) of at least 3000 psi should be used. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci can be used beneath the proposed floor slabs, assuming they are supported on compacted structural fill or well compacted existing subgrade soils (minimum 95% MPMDD). 4.3.3 FLOOR SLAB MOISTURE CONTROL Per the Florida Building Code, we recommend installing polyethylene vapor barrier between the bottom of the floor slab and the top of the compacted subgrade. We recommend installing a minimum 10 -mil, polyethylene vapor barrier between the bottom of the floor slab and the top of the compacted subgrade. This will help to minimize floor dampness and moisture intrusion into the structure through the slab. Assume a coefficient of friction of 0.2 at the soil -slab interface if a vapor barrier is used. If no vapor barrier is used, assume a coefficient of friction of 0.35 at the interface. 4.3.4 ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENT For foundations designed as recommended and site earthwork accomplished according to the recommendations provided later in this report, we estimate total foundation settlement of less than one inch, and differential settlement of less than one half inch. However, if the site is not prepared according to the guidelines provided later in this report, or if our assumptions on construction type and structural loads are inaccurate, our estimates of total and differential settlement may be exceeded during the design life of the structures. P Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 Page 6 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 4.4 PAVEMENT SECTIONS 4.4.1 ASSUMPTIONS We assume that a combination of flexible asphaltic and rigid concrete pavement sections will be used on this project. Our recommendations for both pavement types are listed in the following sections. At the time of this exploration, specific traffic loading information was not provided to us. We have assumed the following conditions for our recommended minimum pavement design. • a twenty (20) year design life • terminal serviceability index (Pt) of 2.5 • reliability of 90 percent • total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E18SAL) up to 35,000 for light duty pavements - car and pickup truck traffic • total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E18SAL) up to 150,000 for heavy duty pavements — occasional heavy truck traffic (delivery, trash collection, service lanes, etc.) 4.4.2 LAYER COMPONENTS Based on the results of our soil borings, the assumed traffic loading information and review of the 2008 FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, our minimum recommended pavement component thicknesses are presented in Table 2. Service Level Light Duty Heavy Duty TABLE 2 MINIMUM ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT COMPONENT THICKNESSES Maximum Traffic Loading up to 35,000 E18SAL up to 150,000 E18SAL * Clients requirement 4.4.3 STABILIZED SUBGRADE Surface Course (inches) 2.0* 2.5* Layer Component Base Course (inches) 0 Stabilized Subgrade (inches) 8 8 We recommend that the stabilized subgrade materials immediately beneath the base course exhibit a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 as specified by FDOT, or a minimum Florida Bearing Value (FBV) of 75 psi, compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) value. It Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 7 Stabilized subgrade can be imported materials or a blend of on -site and imported materials. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade should be performed to the full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 3 tests, whichever is greater. 4.4.4 BASE COURSE We recommend the base course be crushed concrete. Crushed concrete generally provides a cost - effective alternative material in lieu of limerock and is particularly resistant to adverse effects from high groundwater conditions and shallow clayey soils on this site. We therefore do not recommend limerock base course as an alternative for this project. Soil- cement base may also be used; however, reflection cracking should be expected. For a limerock or crushed concrete base, the base course should be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density and exhibit a minimum LBR of 100. We recommend that the base materials comply with the latest edition of the FDOT Road and Bridge Construction specifications. For a soil- cement base, we recommend the contractor perform a soil- cement design with a seven (7) -day strength of 300 pounds per square inch (psi) on the materials he intends to use. Place soil- cement in maximum 6 -inch lifts uniform and compact in place to a minimum density of 95 percent of the maximum dry density according to specifications in ASTM D- 558, "Moisture Density Relations of Soil Cement Mixtures ". Place and finish the soil- cement according to Portland Cement Association requirements. Final review of the soil- cement base course should include manual "chaining" and /or "soundings" seven days after placement. Please note that shrinkage cracks will form in the soil- cement mixture and you should expect reflection cracking on the surface course. Compaction testing of the base course should be performed to the full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 3 tests, whichever is greater. 4.4.5 FLEXIBLE SURFACE COURSE For the new pavement areas, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave (SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP -9.5 fine mix for light - duty areas and FDOT SP -12.5 and /or SP -9.5 fine mix for heavy duty areas. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test tolerance of ±2 percent. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. P Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 LIES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 8 After placement and field compaction, the surfacing should be cored to evaluate material thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per 10,000 square feet of placed pavement or a minimum of two (2) cores per day's production. 4.4.6 SITE PREPARATION FOR NEW PAVEMENT AREAS Following is a list of our recommended site preparation procedures to prepare the new pavement areas for the proposed construction. 1. Strip the new pavement areas of any roots, vegetation, debris, organics etc. The contractor should verify that the site was properly stripped prior to any fill placement. 2. Within the new pavement areas, compact the exposed subgrade soils to at least 95% MPMDD to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of base course. 3. Soil density testing to verify the uniformity of compactive effort should be performed at a frequency of at least one (1) test for every 5,000 square feet per foot of compactive increment, or a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 4. Within the new asphaltic pavement areas improve the subgrade by "pounding" limerock into the soils to provide a stable and firm surface so that the base course can be properly and uniformly placed. The subgrade should be improved to a depth of 6 to 8 inches and achieve a minimum LBR value of 40 in order to be accepted. 5. Construct the new pavement section. 4.4.7 EXISTING PAVEMENT AREAS In the proposed pavement areas, five (5) SPT borings designated B -6 through B -10, were advanced, each to a depth of 7.5 feet bgs. The pavement structure consisted of 1 to 2 inches of asphalt underlain by approximately 4 to 6 inches of limerock base material. Based on the field data and visual inspection, the condition of the existing pavement appears to be below average. If any sections of the existing pavement are to be preserved and /or improved to meet the clients criteria presented in Table 2, removing the top existing flexible asphalt course, and raising the limerock thickness to meet project specification and re- paving may be a viable alternative. Prior to using the existing in -place limerock, we recommend performing an LBR test which should meet a minimum LBR value of 40 in order to be acceptable. 4.4.8 RIGID PAVEMENT OPTION In heavily loaded and /or high traffic areas such as aprons and garbage corrals we recommend using a rigid pavement system for increased strength and durability and for longer life. Portland cement concrete pavement is a rigid system that distributes wheel loads to the subgrade soils over a larger area than a flexible asphalt pavement. This results in reduced localized stress to the subgrade soil. We recommend using a compacted subgrade below concrete pavement with the following stipulations: Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 98% MPMDD to a depth of at least 1 -foot directly below the bottom of concrete slab. u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 Page 9 LIES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete. 3 The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete. 4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened edges (curb or footing). 5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated seasonal high groundwater level by at least 12 inches. Our recommendations on slab thickness for standard duty concrete pavements are based on (1) the subgrade soils densified to at least 98% MPMDD, (2) modulus of subgrade reaction (k) equal to 150 pci, (3) a 20 -year design life, and (4) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (ESAL) of 45,000. We recommend using the design shown in the following table for standard duty concrete pavements. TABLE 3 RIGID PAVEMENT COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS - LIGHT DUTY Minimum Pavement Thickness Maximum Control Joint Minimum Sawcut Depth Spacing 5 Inches 10 Feet x 10 Feet 1.25 Inches Our recommendations on slab thickness for heavy duty concrete pavements are based on the same factors as above with the exception of the total ESAL increased to 300,000. Our recommended design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in Table 4 below. TABLE 4 RIGID PAVEMENT COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS - HEAVY DUTY Minimum Pavement Thickness Maximum Control Joint Minimum Sawcut Depth Spacing 6 Inches 14 Feet x 14 Feet 1.5 Inches For both standard duty and heavy duty rigid pavement sections, we recommend using normal weight concrete having a 28 day compressive strength (fc) of 4,000 psi, and a minimum 28 -day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600 psi (based on the 3 point flexural test of concrete beam samples). Layout of the sawcut control joints should form square panels, and the depth of sawcut joints should be at least % of the concrete slab thickness. For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing of Non - Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 LIES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 10 Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas," published by the Portland Cement Association. 4.4.9 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER One of the most critical influences on pavement performance in Florida is the relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. It has been our experience that many roadways and parking areas have been damaged as a result of deterioration of the base and the base /surface course bond due to moisture intrusion. Regardless of the type of base selected, we recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 18- inches. At this site pavement constructed on existing grade may meet the minimum required separation. 4.4.10 CURBING Most pavement curbing is currently extruded curb which lies directly atop of the final asphaltic concrete surface course. Use of extruded curb or elimination of curb entirely, can allow lateral migration of irrigation water from the abutting landscape areas into the base and /or interface between the asphaltic concrete and base. This migration of water may cause base saturation and failure, and /or separation of the asphaltic concrete wearing surface from the base with subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. For extruded curbing, we recommend that underdrain be installed behind the curb wherever anticipated storm, surface or irrigation waters may collect. In addition, landscape islands should be drained of excess water buildup using an underdrain system. Alternatively, we recommend that curbing around the landscape sections adjacent to the parking lots be constructed using full depth curb sections. 4.4.11 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC Light duty roadways and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construction equipment, concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, etc.) be re- routed away from these roadways or that the pavement section be designed for these loadings. 4.5 RETENTION PONDS 4.5.1 DRI TESTING One (1) Double Ring Infiltrometer (DRI) test designated DRI -1 was completed within the proposed stormwater pond area in general accordance with ASTM D -3385 guidelines, at the location shown on the Boring Location Plan presented in Appendix B. The test was completed at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet below the existing ground surface, using a fluid head of 3 inches. The duration of the test was approximately 2.0 hours. The resulting infiltration rate at the DRI -1 location was recorded at 3.8 inches per hour under the above stated conditions. It should be noted that the coefficients of saturated horizontal and vertical permeability are not equivalent to the short term infiltration rate obtained from a Double Ring Infiltrometer (DRI) test. The DRI value is sometimes considered an unsaturated vertical permeability value and is Itp Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 11 sometimes estimated from relationships established by research conducted by various Florida Water Management Districts or from published USDA (NRCS) soil survey data. The unsaturated infiltration rate is applicable during the early stages of a storm event when water is infiltrating vertically until soil saturation occurs, creating a mounding effect after which time horizontal flow dominates the infiltration process. 4.5.2 FILL SOIL SUITABILITY The recovered soil samples were classified using visual and textural means. We offer below preliminary guidelines for the use of on -site soils, such as those excavated from the proposed retention pond, as fill material for the project. Soil materials excavated and classified as fine sands to slightly silty fine sands (SP, SP -SM), with typically 12% fines or less (silt /clay fraction), may be considered suitable for use as utility trench backfill, as well as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, provided said materials are properly dried, placed, and compacted. Soil materials excavated and classified as silty to slightly clayey fine sands (SM, SP -SC), with typically 12% to 25% fines, may also be considered suitable for use as utility trench backfill, as well as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, after significant drying and some mixing with the fine sand material described above. Proper placement and compaction must also be ensured. Soil materials excavated and classified as silt or clay (ML, MH, CL and CH) and any organic - laden soils (5% or greater organics by weight) should not be reused as fill beneath buildings or pavement sections. These materials could be used in green areas, if applicable, and in non- structural applications where excessive ground subsidence will not create functional or aesthetic problems. 4.6 RETAINING WALLS Earth pressures on retaining walls are influenced by structural design of walls, conditions of wall restraint, construction methods, and the strength of the materials being restrained. The most common conditions assumed for earth retaining wall design are the active and at -rest conditions. Active conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as free- standing walls, where some movement and rotation may occur to mobilize shear strength. Walls which are rigidly restrained, such as loading dock or service pits walls, should be designed for the at -rest condition. However, if the walls will be backfilled before they are braced by the floor slabs, they should also be designed to withstand active earth pressures as self supporting cantilever walls. Development of the full active earth pressure case requires a magnitude of horizontal wall movement that often cannot be tolerated or cannot occur due to the rigidity of the wall and other design restrictions such as the impact on adjacent structures. In such cases, walls are often designed for either the at -rest condition or a condition intermediate of the active and at -rest conditions, depending on the amount of permissible wall movement. Passive earth pressure represents the maximum possible pressure when a structure is pushed against the soil, and is used in wall foundation design to help resist active or at -rest pressures. u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 LIES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 12 Because significant wall movements are required to develop the passive pressure, the total calculated passive pressure is usually reduced by one -half for design purposes. We recommend that the retaining walls be backfilled with materials deemed suitable by the retaining wall designer. Typical sandy soils [SP. SP -SM, SP -SC] have been satisfactorily used as fill in this region. We recommend that the soils selected for use as backfill be tested as specified by the retaining wall designer prior to commencement of wall construction. Recommended soil parameters for design of low retaining walls using soils such as those found on site are shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters (Level Backfill)* Design Parameter Recommended Value At -rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko 0.5 Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka 0.3 Angle of Internal Friction, cp 30 degrees Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp 3.0 Wet Unit Weight, pounds per cubic foot, ywet 120 7:1 " For sloping backfill or backfill with clayey sands the table values must be adjusted. "Hydrostatic pressure should be accounted for seasonal high water table estimates and other site drainage considerations The recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures do not consider the development of hydrostatic pressure behind the earth retaining wall structures. As such, positive wall drainage must be provided for all earth retaining structures. These drainage systems can be constructed of open - graded washed stone isolated from the soil backfill with a geosynthetic filter fabric and drained by perforated pipe, or with one of several wall drainage products made specifically for this application. Our recommendations assume that the ground surface above the wall is level and that native or imported soils consisting of sands to silty sands will be used for wall backfill. Lateral earth pressures arising from surcharge loading should be added to the above earth pressures to determine the total lateral pressure. Additional consideration must also be given for sloped backfill at the top of the wall. In each circumstance the earth pressure coefficients for active and at -rest conditions will increase based upon the amount of surcharge and angle above horizontal of the sloped backfill. 4.7 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL FOR SINKHOLE DEVELOPMENT A sinkhole can be defined as "a depression caused by soil and other materials subsiding into an open hole or void below the ground surface." This phenomenon is not uncommon in karst geology, where soils are underlain by limestone material which has been partially dissolved by the groundwater. The resulting voids in the rock provide paths through which water can travel, taking erodible soil with it. In much of the Central and Western Florida vicinity, the soil which occurs in close proximity above the limestone consists of a light green to gray clay to silty or clayey sand resulting from Itp Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 13 marine deposits, commonly termed the "Hawthorn Formation." This confining layer tends to form a barrier to the vertical movement of groundwater. The groundwater level in the limestone in this area is termed the Floridan aquifer and is under pressure. The groundwater level or piezometric surface in the soils above the confining layer frequently differs from that which exists in the underlying porous limestone because the confining layer prevents an interconnected hydrostatic condition. Provided the confining layer remains intact, the two groundwater regimes can remain independent. The shallow water table is located within the upper sands and rests on top of the confining layer. The upper water table is not confined or under pressure. The water pressure above the top of the confining layer is simply defined by the height, or depth of groundwater which lies above the confining layer. If a well or standpipe were to penetrate the confining layer into the underlying rock, then the water pressure in the deep water table could be evaluated as the level of water within the standpipe. If the pressure causes the water to rise higher than the level of the shallow water table, then the groundwater regime can be described as having a "net upward gradient." If, however, the water in the upper water table is higher than the water in the standpipe, then the condition exhibits a "net downward gradient." If an opening develops in the confining layer, connecting the voids or caverns in the limestone bedrock below to the relatively sandy soils above, then the soil and groundwater conditions might become unbalanced. In some instances, the clay in the confining layer soils may crack, either from shrinkage, such as may result from dry periods when the shallow water table is absent, or from shifting of the limestone bedrock. In other cases, these soils have little clay content, and are inherently more susceptible to erosion. The result can be a breach in the confining layer. If the groundwater has a net downward gradient, then the erodible soils lying both above and below the confining layer can "ravel" through the opening in the confining layer and /or into cavities and fractures in the bedrock, similar to the behavior of sand falling through the orifice of an hourglass. Over a period ranging from hours to possible many years, the loss of material causes the soil above to loosen until it is incapable of supporting the material above, and it subsides under the weight. The resulting sinkhole can damage or destroy man -made structures on the near - surface soils. Although breaches of the confining layer are fairly common, it generally takes a long time for the loose zone to extend to the surface and cause a sinkhole. Therefore, even in areas of "high sinkhole potential ", the incidence of surface expressions (sinkholes) can be infrequent. Although some notable Florida sinkholes have been large, most of the sinkholes observed within the Central Florida area have been smaller than 25 feet in diameter. In Western Florida, sinkholes typically can be even smaller, generally in the range of 10 feet in diameter or less. Sinkhole activity may be indicated by the presence of some of the following conditions or occurrences: • Proximity to known sinkholes or natural topographic depressions, ponds, or lakes. a loose or raveled zone within the sandy overburden soil, or clay confining layer, indicating movement of the soils into voids in the limestone below; u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 14 • the presence of an opening in the confining layer, as indicated by boring through the layer and finding either little or no thickness of clay; • reduced water pressure in the soil voids ( "pore pressure ") with increasing depth, indicating downward flow of water; • depressed, or absent groundwater table; • depression of the top of, or opening, or voids within, the limestone bedrock; and • loss of drilling fluid circulation while advancing a borehole, particularly in the soils above the limestone contact. Based on review of the subsurface conditions encountered within the boring designated B -3 and in conjunction with our knowledge of the area, it is our opinion that, the potential for a sinkhole development within a 50 year useful life of structure should be considered low for the site and we do not recommend any sinkhole remediation procedures for this site. 4.8 SITE PREPARATION We recommend normal, good - practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include stripping the site of vegetation, trees, proof - rolling and proof- compacting the subgrade, and filling to grade with engineered fill as needed. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows: If required, perform remedial dewatering prior to any earthwork operations. We recommend temporary dewatering to reduce the likelihood of pumping of the shallow subgrade soils during normal construction operations. Maintain groundwater levels at least 24 inches below the lowest anticipated cut and /or all compaction surfaces. 2. The existing structures need to be razed prior to new site development. Execute demolition according to specifications to be provided by the project Structural Engineer. Completely remove the affected structures including floor slabs, foundations, and subgrade utilities. Backfill excavated areas (i.e., footing and utility trenches) according to the guidelines discussed in Item #7 below. 3. Strip the proposed construction limits of all existing pavement sections (including base material, where present), grass, roots, topsoil, construction debris, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building and in all paved areas. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 6 inches, on average. Deeper clearing and grubbing depths may be required where major root systems are encountered. 4. Proof -roll the subgrade with a heavily loaded, rubber -tired vehicle under the observation of a Universal Engineering Sciences geotechnical engineer or his representative. Proof - rolling will help locate any zones of especially loose or soft soils not encountered in the soil test borings. Then undercut, or otherwise treat these zones as recommended by the engineer. u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 Page 15 5. Prior to any filling of the site, proof- compact the subgrade from the surface using suitable compaction equipment, until you obtain a minimum density of 95% MPMDD to a depth of 2 feet below stripped grade. In order to achieve the required degree of compaction, the soils may need to be moisture conditioned until the in -situ water content is within +/- 2% of the optimum moisture content (OMC). 6. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per foot of depth improvement in the building areas. In paved areas, perform compliance tests on the stabilized subgrade for full depth at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 7. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of fine to medium sand with less than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and 12 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Place fill in uniform 10 to 12 inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95% MPMDD at a moisture content of +/- 2% of optimum (OMC). 8. Perform compliance tests within the fill at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. In paved areas, perform compliance tests at a frequency of not less than one test per 10,000 square feet per lift, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. 9. Test all final footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 2 feet. Additionally, we recommend you test one out of every four column footings, and that you complete at least one test per every 50 lineal feet of wall footing. Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We recommend you monitor nearby structures before and during proof- compaction. If disturbance is noted, halt vibratory compaction and inform Universal Engineering Sciences immediately. We will review the compaction procedures and evaluate if the compactive effort results in a satisfactory subgrade complying with our original design assumptions. 4.9 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) operates and maintains an in- house, Florida Department of Transportation certified Construction Materials Testing laboratory. Our technicians are highly trained and experienced, and our engineering staff is already familiar with the details of your project. Therefore, we recommend the owner retain UES to perform construction materials testing and field observations on this project. This includes monitoring all stripping and grading, observation of foundation excavation and construction, verification of pavement subgrade and all other construction testing and inspection services that may be needed on this project. The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. It is an on -going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, our engineers are the most qualified to address problems that might arise during construction in a timely and cost - effective manner. u Proposed McDonald's Store L/C 9 -2528 Page 16 UES Project No. 0830.1300588 December 18, 2013 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 subsurface variations. An Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences (ASFE) publication, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix C, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues. Further, we present documents in Appendix C: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report. Do not apply any of this report's conclusions or recommendations if the nature, design, or location of the facilities is changed. If changes are contemplated, UES must review them to assess their impact on this report's applicability. Also, note that UES is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with any other party's interpretation of this report's subsurface data or reuse of this report's subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of UES. u APPENDIX A 93 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROPOSED MCDONALD'S L/C 9 -2528 2871 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA SITE LOCATION MAP CLIENT: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: DEC 6, 2013 - 9 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: A PROPOSED MCDONALD'S L/C 9 -2528 ED 2871 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: DEC 6, 2013 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: A 91 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROPOSED MCDONALD'S L/C 9 -2528 2871 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CLIENT: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION SITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DRAWN BY: JCM SCALE: NOT TO SCALE I PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 1 REVIEWED BY: SS DATE: DEC 6, 2013 APPENDIX: A PROPOSED MCDONALD'S L/C 9 -2528 ED 2871 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA SCS SOIL SURVEY MAP UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: DEC 6, 2013 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE I PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: A APPENDIX B I i B -1 9ToP �e�ibN sa a j r B -7 = B -6 .� ,Uwl Y0mu STOP S r 13— Leol ab f k N I MI i 3w I Aµ fHO 7C �'•�, — — Y 1 I < I B-8 y` I I VL , O I ,,,, .y ; B -10 �d P C T r PROp ©s o ©�150 1 5�1 2 I _ LEGEND: 00' $B -1 Approximate SPT boring location +DRI -1 Approximate DRI location PROPOSED MCDONALD'S L/C 9 -2528 2871 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN UNIVERSAL - ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: DEC 6, 2013 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: B B -1 �e�ibN sa PROPOSED MCDONALD'S L/C 9 -2528 2871 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN UNIVERSAL - ENGINEERING SCIENCES CLIENT: MCDONALD'S CORPORATION DRAWN BY: JCM DATE: DEC 6, 2013 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 REVIEWED BY: SS APPENDIX: B PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's UC 9 -2528 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 11/19/13 PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 ENGINEER: 9802 Palm River Tampa, Florida 33619 Tam BORING LOG APPENDIX: PAGE: 1 SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN (813) 740 -8506 SPT PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's UC 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -01 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 11/19/13 Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SPT BORING DESIGNATION: B -01 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 48 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING: 11/19/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W Sr W.T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT S S DEPTH (ft) A M BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W Y M BO DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS ORG ( %) L E 10 25 L LL PL PI 0 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" 9-1limerockbase) Light gray sand with rocks (SP) 5 fX— 1 -14 5 -5 -5 6 -6 -7 5 10 13 Tan sand (SP) Gray sand {SP} Brown sand (SP) Gray clayey sand (SC) 10 8 -8 -8 .. 16 15 —� a-2-2 4 ...... Boring terminated at 15 ft. ED UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 APPENDIX: PAGE: 2 ENGINEER: PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E. CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BLOW COUNTS BORING DESIGNATION: B -02 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 58 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING: 11/19/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST. W.S.W T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT S S DEPTH (ft) M P BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W M B - DESCRIPTION -200 N MC ATL MITSRG ORG E O L LL PL PI 0 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" -- limerockbase) Gray sand wlclay (SP -SC) Tan sand (SP) 5 1 -3 -6 7-6-6 9 12 Dark brown sand with silt (5 -S ) Brown sand (SP) Gray clayey sand (SC) 1 -3 -5 8 Green clayey sand (SC) 10 5 -6 =7 ' 13 Green clay (CH) 15 ... a-.4-3 7. Boring terminated at 15 ft . V C L { u U u c c I PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 11/19/13 PROJECT NO.: 0830 1300588 ENGINEER: 9802 Palm River Tampa, Florida 33619 Tam BORING LOG APPENDIX: PAGE: 3 SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN (813) 740 -8506 SPT PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -03 SHEET: I Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 11/19/13 Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SPT BORING DESIGNATION: B -03 SHEET: I Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 45 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING: 11/19/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W S.W T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT S S DEPTH (ft) A M P E BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W 25 Y M B O L DESCRIPTION -200 ( %) MC (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL PI ORG N 0 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" lirnerockbase) Gray sand (SP) Tan sand (SP) �. Brown sanii (SP) 5—X 1 -2 -3 .. 5 ........ ..... ... Gray clayey sand (SC) 3 -5 -7 12 7 -7-4 11 Green clayey sand (SC) ....... ..... . . . ...... 10 . 86.7. ...13..:.. .. .. ,- .._... .... 15 4-.3.5 Green clay (CH) 20 4-.3 7... . 25 4 -5,4 _ .. A..... . , .... ..... . 30 .11- 11 -.14.. ..25 ....... ... ... . 35 11- 12- .1.3 .... 25... -... ... - 40 ..97.1.0-20- -3.0 . ...... .. . X 45 t 11- 25:20.....4.5......... _ . . i 50 .6 78 -12 2.0 . ..... .... .. . 55 i i i 12 1,0- -.1.5... 27. Boring terminated at 55 ft . 91 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 APPENDIX: PAGE: 4 CLIENT: PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -04 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 50 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING: 11119/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W -S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E. CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: DEPTH (ft) BORING DESIGNATION: B -04 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 50 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING: 11119/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W -S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT 9 S DEPTH (ft) A M P E BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W 0 25 Y M BO L DESCRIPTION -200 ( %) MC N ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL PI ORG ( %) 0 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" limerockbase) Light brown sand (SP) Dark brown sand with silt (SP -SM) 5 3 -3 -5 6 -8 -10 8 18 I Brown clayey §and (SC) Gray clayey sand (SC) 10 4 -7 -8 ' 6 -5 -6 15 11 Green clayey sand (SC) 0/// 15 4-.4,6 10 Boring terminated at 15 ft- PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES Tampa,I brier 3619 Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830 1300588 APPENDIX: PAGE: 5 CLIENT: PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -05 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 40 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST. W S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E. CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: DEPTH (ft) BORING DESIGNATION: B -05 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 40 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST. W S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT S S DEPTH (ft) A M P E BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W 0 Y M B O L DESCRIPTION -200 ( %) MC ( %) ATTERBERG LIMITS PL I PL PI ORG ( %) a Asphaltic concrete pavement (1" asphalt, 5" limercckbase) Brown sand (SP) * Light brown sand (SP) Srovio sand (SP) 3-4-6 4 -4-6 10 10 Red brown sand (SP) r Light brown clayey sand (SC) r 3 -5 -5 10 'Light green dark orange clay (CH) 10 3 -3 -5 a tight gray clayey sand (5C) Dark green and gray clayey sand (SC) Boring terminated at 10 5 ft. ED UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830 1300588 APPENDIX: PAGE: 6 PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -06 SHEET: I Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 11/19/13 Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SPT BORING DESIGNATION: B -06 SHEET: I Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.0 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING 11/19/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT S S A Y ATTERBERG DEPTH M BLOW N SPT -N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS ORG (ft) P COUNTS (bpf) (bpf) W B ( %) ( %) N O LL PL PI E 25 5 L 0 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" 1 imerockba5e) 2 Tan sand (SP) 3 4 # Brown sand (SP) 5 6 3 -44 8 • "�y � Gray clayey sand (SC) 7 5 -6 -8 14 Boring terminated at 7.5 ft. PROJECT: UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 11/19/13 PROJECT NO: 0830 1300588 5.0 DATE FINISHED: 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 BORING LOG APPENDIX: PAGE 7 McDonald's Corporation (813) 740 -8506 SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 11/19/13 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 5.0 DATE FINISHED: Clearwater. Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B -U% SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/19/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.0 DATE FINISHED: 11/19/13 DATE OF READING: 11/19/2013 DRILLED BY: J H. EST WSW T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT S S A Y ATTERBERG DEPTH M BLOW N SPT -N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS ORG (ft) P COUNTS (bpf) (bpf) W B (°/a) ( %) ( %) E 0 25 50 O L LL PL PI 0 1 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 4" 2 limerockbase) Gray sand (SP) 3 Tan sand (SP) 4 /\ 2 -1 -3 4 Gray sand {5P} 6 7 X Brown sand (SP) 5 -9 -7 16 Gray clayey sand (SC) Boring terminated at 7.5 ft, ED UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830 1300588 APPENDIX: PAGE: 8 CLIENT: PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -08 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 50 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J.H. EST. W.S -W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E. CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B -08 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 50 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J.H. EST. W.S -W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT S S A Y ATTERBERG DEPTH (ft) M P L E BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W T M B O L DESCRIPTION 200 ( %) MC ( °lo) LIMITS I LL PL PI ORG ( %) 0 2 Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 6" limerockbase) _ �lBrown sand wlclay (SP -SC) 3 Light brown sand (SP) 4 5 6 7 4 -5 -6 10 -6 -5 11 11 _ Z 8iown sand w /roots (SP) _ - - - - - - — / Red brown sand (SP) Brown clayey sand (SC) Gray and orange clayey sand (SC) Boring terminated at 7.5 ft PROJECT: UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO: 0830 1300588 91 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 BORING LOG APPENDIX: CLIENT: (813) 740 -8506 LOCATION: PAGE: 9 PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's UC 9 -2528 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B -09 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 50 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT S S A Y ATTERBERG DEPTH M BLOW N SPT -N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS ORG (ft) P E COUNTS (bpf) (bpf) W BO L (%) (%) ( %) LL PL PI 0 1 2 — Asphaltic concrete pavement (1" asphalt, 5" limerackbase) Brown sand w /roots (SP) 3 Brown sand (SP) 4 5 —X 7 — X 4 -6 -7 7 -7 -7 13 14 Red brown (SP) \Gray orange clayey sand (SC) 1Green orange clayey sand (SC) Boring terminated at 7.5 ft. ED UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830.1300588 APPENDIX: PAGE: 10 Clearwater. Florida PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 11/20/13 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 50 DATE FINISHED: Clearwater. Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B-1 O SHEET: 1 Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 50 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING: 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W S W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT S S ArL DEPTH M BLOW N SPT -N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC MITSRG ORG (ft) P COUNTS (bpf) (bpf) W B ( %) ( %) -- ( %) E 0 25 50 O L LL PL PI 0— Asphaltic concrete pavement (2" asphalt, 6" 1 2 limerockbase) Brown sand (SP) 3 Light brown sand (SP) 4 4 -5 -8 13 Red brown sand with silt (SP -M) 6 7 Light brown sand with clay (SP -SC) 7 -8 -8 16 Light brown gray clayey sand {SC} Gray sandy clay (CH) Boring terminated at 7.5 ft c a i c i a t t a 4 t PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 11/20/13 PROJECT NO: 0830 1300588 91 9802 Palm River Road Tampa, Florida 33619 BORING LOG APPENDIX: LOCATION: (813) 740 -8506 REMARKS: PAGE: 11 PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -1 1 SHEET: I Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 11/20/13 Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P E. CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SPT BORING DESIGNATION: B -1 1 SHEET: I Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 40 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING: 11/2012013 DRILLED BY: J.H EST. W S.W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SPT DEPTH (ft) S A M P E BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W 0 25 50 S Y M BO L DESCRIPTION -200 (°N a) MC ( %) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL PI ORG N Dark brown sand w /roots (SP) Brown sand (SP) Red brown sand with silt (SP -SM) 5-1 1 {' 4 -5 -7 6 -5 -7 12 12 Gray and light brown oranger clayey sand (SC) Light gray w /orange vains clayey sand (SC) Light gray and light brown clayey sand (SC) 3-4 -6 10 X Gray clayey, sand (SC) 10 6 7 =5 12 .. 15 v i V i i I I { � �. 3 -.3� 7 Light gray and light green sandy clay (CH) Boring terminated at 15 ft. a a r r C u u u c ( 0 a C C C C L F ED UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES Road Tampa,I Florida 3619 Tampa, lorida 33619 (813) 740 -8506 BORING LOG PROJECT NO: 0830 1300586 APPENDIX: PAGE: 12 CLIENT: PROJECT: Proposed McDonald's L/C 9 -2528 BORING DESIGNATION: B -12 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: 2871 Gulf To Bay Boulevard 11/20/13 Clearwater, Florida ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi, P.E CLIENT: McDonald's Corporation LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SPT BORING DESIGNATION: B -12 SHEET: 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 11/20/13 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.0 DATE FINISHED: 11/20/13 DATE OF READING: 11/20/2013 DRILLED BY: J H EST W S.W T (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING SPT DEPTH (ft) S A M P E BLOW COUNTS N (bpf) SPT -N vs DEPTH G (bpf) W 25 S Y M O B L DESCRIPTION -200 ( %) MC ( %) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL PI ORG ( %) 0 _ Dark brown sand w /roots (SP) Brown clayey sand (SC) Green and light brown clayey sand (SC) tight gray and brown clayey sand (SC) 5 3 -3 -5 B Light brown and gray clayey sand (SC) 4 -5 -7 12 Gray clayey sand (SC) 10 4-4-2 woh- 2 -3... 6 'S .. •.. .. .... ... _..... Light.green and, orange sandy clay (CH) 15 i i I, 1 i 1 1 1 3-.3� 7 . Light brown sandy clay (CH) Boring terminated at 15 ft UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES GENERAL NOTES 9802 Palm River Road Tam pa, Florida 33619 Tam SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART (813) 740 -8506 System and include consistency, moisture, and color. Field TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY OR CONDITION GENERAL NOTES COARSE - GRAINED SOILS (major portions retained on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) clean 1 Classifications are based on the United Soil Classification gravel and sands and (2) silty or clayey gravels and sands. Condition is rated according to System and include consistency, moisture, and color. Field relative density as determined by laboratory tests or standard penetration resistance tests. descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests 2 to 4 where deemed appropriate Descriptive Terms Relative Density SPT Blow Count 2. Surface elevations are based on topographic maps and estimated Very loose 0 to 15 IN < 4 ry locations. to Loose 15 to 35 % 4 to 10 Very stiff Medium dense 35 to 65 % 10 to 30 3. Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific Dense 65 to 85 % 30 to 50 boring locations and at the time the borings were made. They are Very dense 85 to 100 % > 50 not guaranteed to be representative of subsurface conditions at other = locations or times FINE - GRAINED SOILS (major portions passing on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) inorganic and mixtures, little or no fines organic silts and clays, (2) gravelly, sandy, or silty clays, and (3) clayey silts. Consistency is SOIL SYMBOLS rated according to shearing strength, as indicated by penetrometer readings, SPT blow count, tests. �. ■ or unconfined compression FIl1 TOPSdL ASR 1 —R— SAND SAND W1 SAND - SILTY LI 1 Unconfined Compressive Descriptive Terms Strength kPa SPT Blow Count Very soft < 25 < 2 Soft 25 to 50 2 to 4 Medium stiff 50 to 100 4 to 8 Stiff 100 to 200 8 to 15 Very stiff 200 to 400 15 to 30 Hard > 400 > 30 SILT CLAY sMq SAND m ® � C -AY PEAT SILT H LT LT CUIY — L14ESTONE LINESTONE GOLOURE �I SILT LOW HIUILY RASTIC 0.fST!C PLASTIC 0.lSTIC WEATHFAED OTHER SYMBOLS t Measured Water Q Estimated Seasonal Table Level High Water Table Major Divisions Group Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria Symbols c m > w GW Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand DRO greater than 4; (D30iz between 1 and 3 Cu- D10 Cc- D10 x Dw N O o o = mixtures, little or no fines 0 f0 � m 2 V 00 O O v `m Nin j GP Poorly- graded gravels, gravel -sand Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW o r J zz� mixtures, little or no fines o - w >`oz ENO n N_ m m GM Silty gravels, gravel- Sand -silt -. Atterberg limits below "A" Above "A" line with P I ° t m $ z N rn ar C5 z c 5 w` o mixtures e m m a line or P I less than 4 between 4 and 7 are border- .r? 0 `m w �, e m line cases requiring use of N "A" GC Clayey gravels, gravel- Sand -silt ono a 0� Atterberg limits above dual symbols d c E U� N mixtures a- 6 W Q rti line or P I greater than 7 o c" SVt% Well- graded sands, gravelly sands, C _ DSO greater than 6; C = (D30)Z between 1 and 3 m '� 12 `� E I� O N V O 0 0 °o `m 0 °- N vi c'- little or no fines m �� g (5 U u- D10 c D10 x D. y ^o a O 0 E N h C ¢4L t �y1j � N SP _.. - _.__.. _ Poorly- graded sands, gravelly sands, Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW w' C` v o .a B a m L U v J little or no fines a m z. m d a c w c SM Silty sands, sand -Silt mixtures Atterberg limits below "A" line or P I less than 4 Above "A" line with P I m t `oo N m m c -- 01 - d q. ,n`r v `m o c c °, o q m m S£ N c- between 4 and 7 are border- � y - - "A" o 3 �' -- n o a $ line cases requiring use of o ° �_ d o 1L U E SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures D`, a, ,° m °'m Atterberg limits above line or P greater than 7 dual symbols = (n Inorganic silts and very fine sands, ML rock floor, silty or clayey fine sands 80, c y Or Clayey silts with slight plasticity FIXi CLARIFICATION OF FINEGRAINED SOIL AND m! U E FINELRAINEO FRACTION OF COARSE - GRAINED SOILS ` 70 J / M ° o o1 E Inorganic clays of low to medium a t CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, �� U) ° m m J H -� iZi m silty clays, lean clays Go r �p v OL — silty clays Z a a� x50 r` N � of low plasticity z �1 N T , i0 r a Inorganic silts, micaceous or disto- i i N m o ° N M maceous fine sandy or silty soils, / m ti c?= N o organic silts 30 , E E 0 0 s ° 0 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, o a t z0 �rO m v N m M � fat clays G� MH oR OH CH Organic clays of medium to high L m + ML OL 1 1 u 0 plasticity, organic silts 1 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) N N °1 n w m Id i m LL U U m .- Pt Peat and other highly organic soils Plasticity Chart � ` When the percent passing a No 200 sieve is between 5% and 12 %, a dual symbol is used to denote the soil For example, SP -SC, poorly- graded sand with clay content between 5% and 12% APPENDIX C r Geolechnical Engineering Report ---) Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purpom, Persons, ad Projects Geo€echnicat engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the steeds of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Fii 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. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A I nWo Set of Praiect- Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project- specific fac- tors 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 oth- erwise, 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, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • 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 COMMON Can grange A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man -made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events, such as floods earthquakes. or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Nast Geotec mdcal RdWs Are Professional Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken Geotechnical engi- neers 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 construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are WNW Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers 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 recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotech" DqNwering Report Is Subject to NN - erpretatlm Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. llo Not Re&= the W111111111111111 Is labs 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 Contractors a Calque PAW and Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation To help prevent costly problems. give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal In that letter: advise contractors 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 contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read RespaisibM Provisions Clesegl Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcornes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities 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. Geoenvlronimotail CDIN wn Are Not Cevm4W The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental 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. It you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. DUO e i i, aal A=WMN Te Qeal. 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 com- prehensive 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. a num- ber of 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 per- formed in connection with Me geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. 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 ASFE- Member GeOteChnClall EM*ww for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE - member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFr= THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH 8811 Colesvllle Road /Suite G106, Silver Spring, NID 20910 Telephone: 301 /565 -2733 Facsimile: 301 /589 -2017 e -mail: info ®asfe org wwwasle org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc Duplication. reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever is stricrly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpling, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review Only members of ASFE 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 an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER08041 01MRP CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS 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 construction 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 thatthe 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 explorations to determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations. STRATA CHANGES Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available information and may not be shown at the exact depth. OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING Attempts are made to detect and /or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence. WATER LEVELS Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling and they indicate normally occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations. LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man -matte buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects_ Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any buried man -made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. TIME This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of exploration. If the report is not used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required.