ecs florida, llc

ECS Florida, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Report

Terraces at Wesley Chapel

New River Road and SR 54 Wesley Chapel, Florida ECS Project Number 41:1946, Revision 1 July 18, 2017 Revised August 24, 2017

Terraces at Wesley Chapel July 18, 2017, Revised August 24, 2017 ECS Project No. 41:1946, Revision 1 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Scope of Services .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Authorization .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Location...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Current Site Conditions .......................................................................................................... 5

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Field Exploration Program ...................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Test Borings .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Soil Survey Mapping ............................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Subsurface Characterization .................................................................................................. 7 3.4 Groundwater Observations .................................................................................................... 8

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................................... 9 5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 10

5.1 Building Design ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.1.1 Foundations ................................................................................................................ 10 5.1.2 Floor Slabs ................................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Site Design Considerations ................................................................................................... 12 5.2.1 Pavement Sections ..................................................................................................... 12 5.2.2 Stormwater Pond ...................................................................................................... 14

5.3 Sinkhole Potential ................................................................................................................ 14 6.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 15

6.1 Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................................................... 15 6.1.1 Subgrade Preparation, Stripping and Grubbing ......................................................... 15 6.1.2 Proofrolling ................................................................................................................. 15 6.1.3 Subgrade Stabilization ................................................................................................ 15

6.2 Earthwork Operations .......................................................................................................... 16 6.2.1 Structural Fill Materials............................................................................................... 16 6.2.2 Compaction ................................................................................................................. 17

6.3 Foundation and slab observations ....................................................................................... 18 6.4 Utility Installations ............................................................................................................... 19 6.5 General Construction Considerations .................................................................................. 19

7.0 CLOSING ............................................................................................................................. 21 APPENDICES Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

Site Location Diagram

Boring Location Diagram


Appendix B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs

Boring Logs B‐1 through B‐14 Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Test Results Summary


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

The geotechnical exploration performed for the planned development included 14 soil test borings drilled to depths between 15 and 45 feet.

Subsurface conditions within the borings generally consisted of approximately 8 to 17 feet of sand with various amounts of fines, underlain by clayey soils and limestone. The upper soils were predominately very loose to loose.

Foundation Recommendations

The four‐story multi‐family buildings may be supported on conventional shallow foundations consisting of column or strip footings bearing on natural soils with an allowable net bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. Due to the presence of very loose soils in the upper eight feet, it is recommended the building pads be rolled with a vibratory roller weighing at least 20 tons making at least 10 passes in each perpendicular direction. Details of the assumed foundation subgrade elevations and loads are contained in the body of the report.

Stormwater Pond Recommendations

It is our understanding the project site will have two ponds along the western extent. ECS drilled four soil test borings identified as borings B‐11 through B‐14. Borings B‐11 and B‐12 were conducted within the northwestern pond and borings B‐13 and B‐14 within the southwestern pond. Borings B‐11 and B‐12 generally encountered fine sand in the upper six to 12 feet overlaying clayey sand. Borings B‐13 and B‐14 generally encountered fine sand in the upper two to six feet overlaying clayey sand. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.

Pavement Recommendations

In general, we recommend the following flexible pavement section designs. Recommendations for heavy duty pavement are included in our report.

Flexible Pavement Heavy‐Duty Section:

2 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S‐1 or S‐3)

8 inches base course

12 inches stabilized subgrade

Flexible Pavement Standard‐Duty Section:

1.5 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S‐1 or S‐3)




1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design and construction of five four‐story multifamily structures, two stormwater ponds, parking spaces, and driveways. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by your office. This report contains the results of our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing programs, site characterization, results of engineering analyses, and recommendations. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES To obtain the necessary geotechnical information required for design of the four‐story buildings and stormwater ponds, soil test borings were performed at locations selected by our office. A laboratory testing program was also implemented to characterize the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils. This report discusses our exploratory and testing procedures, presents our findings and evaluations and includes the following.

A brief review and description of our field and laboratory test procedures and the results of testing conducted.

A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

A review of area and site geologic conditions.

A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

Final copies of our soil test borings.

Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills, including an evaluation of on‐site soils for use as compacted fills and delineation of potentially unsuitable soils and/or soils exhibiting excessive moisture at the time of sampling.

Recommended foundation type(s).

Recommendations for stormwater pond.

1.3 AUTHORIZATION

Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 41:1918‐GP, dated June 26, 2017, as authorized by you on July 5, 2017, and includes the Terms and Conditions of Service outlined with our Proposal.


2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The site is located southeast of the intersection of New River Road and SR 54, as shown below on Figure 2.1.1 Site Location. Based on the Site Plan, provided by Charlan, Brock & Associates, we understand the proposed construction will consist of multifamily housing, two stormwater ponds, parking, and drive areas.

Figure 2.1.1. Site Location

2.2 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS

The site is currently vacant with tall grass and sparse tree cover. Please note that ground surface elevations were not available and a site survey was not performed as part of our scope of work. It should be noted based on historical aerials, it appears the site has remained vacant since at least 1990.


3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in the determination of geotechnical recommendations. 3.1.1 Test Borings The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling ten soil test borings within the building pads (B‐1 to B‐10) and four soil test borings in the stormwater pond footprints (B‐11 to B‐14). An all‐terrain vehicle (ATV)‐mounted drill rig was utilized to drill the soil test borings. Borings were generally advanced to depths of 15 to 45 feet below the current ground surface. Subsurface explorations were completed under the general supervision of an ECS geotechnical engineer or geologist. Boring locations were identified in the field by ECS personnel using GPS techniques or by taping from existing features prior to mobilization of our drilling equipment. The approximate as‐drilled boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. Ground surface elevations noted on our boring logs were interpolated from published topographic information. No site survey was performed. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in the borings at regular intervals in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Small representative samples were obtained during these tests and were used to classify the soils encountered. The standard penetration resistances obtained to provide a general indication of soil shear strength and compressibility.

3.2 SOIL SURVEY MAPPING

Based on the Soil Survey for Pasco County, Florida by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA) the predominant predevelopment soil type at the site is identified and a summary of characteristics of this soil series is included below.

Table 3.2.1 1Soil Survey

Soil Type Constituents Drainage Class Water Table

6 — Tavares Fine Sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Sand Moderately Well

drained 42 to 72 inches


Soil mapping of the site vicinity is presented in Figure 3.2.2 below.

Figure 3.2.2: Site Soil Survey

3.3 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during our subsurface exploration. For subsurface information at a specific location, refer to the Boring Logs in Appendix B.

6


Table 3.3.1 Subsurface Stratigraphy Approximate

Depth Range (ft) Stratum Description Ranges of

SPT(1) N‐values (bpf)

0‐27 ft I – Upper Sandy Soils

Very Loose to Medium Dense Fine Sand with Silt (SP‐SM) and Silty Fine Sand (SM)

1 to 22

2‐45 ft II – Clayey Soils

Very Loose to Dense Clayey Sand (SC) 2 to 34

32‐45 ft III – Lean Clay and Limestone

Sandy Lean Clay (CL) and Weathered Limestone (Borings B‐2, B‐5, and B‐7 through B‐10)

4 to over 50 blows per increment

Notes: (1) Standard Penetration Test

3.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Water levels were measured in our borings as noted on the soil boring logs in Appendix B. Groundwater depths were not encountered in the upper 10 feet in the borings at the time of drilling. To determine the depth of groundwater, ECS recommends placing temporary piezometers across the project site. Variations in the long‐term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors. The groundwater will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall. The rainy season in Florida is normally between June and September. Based upon our site‐specific field data, our review of the USDA Soils Survey of Pasco County, the USGS topographic map of the area, published lake level data, the expected regional hydrogeology and our experience in the area, we estimate the seasonal high groundwater levels to be eight to nine feet below existing grade. The contractor should determine actual groundwater conditions prior to construction to evaluate their impact on the work.


4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing performed by ECS for this project consisted of selected tests performed on samples obtained during our field exploration operations. Classification and soil property tests were performed on representative soil samples obtained from the test borings in order to aid in classifying soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System and to quantify and correlate engineering properties. Laboratory tests performed on selected samples included grain size analysis tests and moisture content tests. An experienced geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist visually classified each soil sample from the test borings on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D‐2488 (Description and Identification of Soils‐Visual/Manual Procedures). After classification, the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist grouped the various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses following the soil descriptions on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.


5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 BUILDING DESIGN

The recommendations presented in this report are based on the project information provided to us, the results of the soil test borings, laboratory testing, and the engineering analyses. Considering the results of our field exploration, and our experience with similar projects, it is our judgment that the site is suitable for the proposed development utilizing a foundation system consisting of spread footings, provided that the subgrade soils have been properly prepared, provided that the recommendations herein are followed. Due to the presence of very loose soils in the upper eight feet, it is recommended the site be rolled using a large vibratory roller with a weight of at least 20 tons making at least 10 passes in each perpendicular direction. The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design and soil supported slabs. 5.1.1 Foundations According to the soil borings for the proposed multifamily building, the materials anticipated at normal footing depths below the proposed floor slabs should consist of sandy soils with various amount of fines (SP, SP‐SM), with no roots and less than 5 percent organic content. Clayey soils (SC) are more moisture sensitive and can be easily eroded with the presence of water. Therefore, Structural Fill and/or foundation/slab concrete should be placed as early in the construction stages as practical to minimize subgrade exposure. No structural information has been provided to us for the proposed development, however; we the structural loads for the residential buildings are in the order of 150 kips and 5 kips/lf for columns and walls or less. We also assumed that final grades will be within about 2 feet of existing elevations. Once the site is prepared based upon our geotechnical recommendations; the geotechnical analyses of the test boring data indicate the sandy soils expected at footing bearing levels and provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed structure can be supported by conventional shallow foundations: individual column footings and continuous wall footings. The design of the foundation shall utilize the following parameters:


Table 5.1.1.1 Foundation Design Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure1 2,500 psf 2,500 psf

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Loose SAND (SP/SP‐SM) ‐ Stratum I

Loose SAND (SP/SP‐SM) ‐ Stratum I

Minimum Width 24 inches 16 inches

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below slab or finished grade)

24 inches 18 inches

Estimated Total Settlement 1 inch 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement Less than 0.5 inches between columns

Less than 0.5 inches over 50 feet

1. Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

Our settlement analysis assumes the soils from the bottom of the footings to depths 2 feet below the bottom of the footing have been compacted prior to placing concrete in the footings when placed on structural fill material. As such, we recommend this zone be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D‐1557). Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed with approved structural fill or with lean concrete (f’c ≥ 1,000 psi at 28 days) or No. 57 stone, as applicable, up to the original design bottom of footing elevation. 5.1.2 Floor Slabs The on‐site natural soils are considered suitable for support of the lowest floor slabs, although moisture control during earthwork operations may be necessary. It appears that the slabs for the structure will bear on the Stratum I. This material is likely suitable for the support of a slab‐on‐grade, however, clayey fine sand and silty fine sand may be encountered at the subgrade level, which may be moisture sensitive and can be easily eroded with the presence of water. Therefore, Structural Fill and/or concrete should be placed as early in the construction stages as practical to minimize subgrade exposure.


The following graphic depicts our soil‐supported slab recommendations:

Figure 5.1.2.1

1. Drainage Layer Material: GRAVEL (GP, GW), SAND (SP, SW)

2. Subgrade compacted to 98% maximum dry density per ASTM D698

Subgrade Modulus: Provided the placement of Structural Fill and Granular Drainage Layer per the recommendations discussed herein, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction, k1 of 150 pci (lbs/cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by 1 ft plate load test basis.

5.2 SITE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

5.2.1 Pavement Sections General Recommendations: Our scope of services did not include extensive sampling and LBR testing of existing subgrade or potential sources of imported fill for the specific purpose of a detailed pavement analysis. Instead, we have assumed pavement‐related design parameters that are considered to be typical for the area soil types. The recommended pavement thicknesses presented in this report section are considered typical and minimum for the assumed parameters in the general site area. We understand that budgetary considerations sometimes warrant thinner pavement sections than those presented. However, the client, the owner, and the project designers should be aware that thinner pavement sections may result in increased maintenance costs and lower than anticipated pavement life. We recommend the following pavement section designs:

Flexible Pavement Heavy‐Duty Section:

2 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S‐1 or S‐3)



Flexible Pavement Standard‐Duty Section:

1.5 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S‐1 or S‐3)



All pavement subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the section entitled Earthwork Operations.

Concrete Slab Vapor Barrier

Granular Capillary Break/Drainage Layer

Compacted Subgrade


In areas where Portland cement concrete pavement is planned, the concrete should be placed upon a minimum of 12 inches of compacted, free draining material and compacted to 98% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D‐1557). In areas where asphaltic concrete pavements are used, we suggest stabilizing the subgrade materials to a minimum Florida Bearing Value (FBV) of 75 pounds per square inch (psi). As an alternate for the FBV, materials can have a Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 percent. All stabilized subgrade materials should be compacted to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D‐1557) maximum dry density and meet specification requirements for Type B or Type C Stabilized Subgrade by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The stabilized subgrade may consist of imported material or a blend of on‐site soils and imported materials. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor performs a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. Base Course: Based on the encountered water table we have assumed that groundwater will not be within 2 feet below pavement subgrade. ECS anticipates that limerock will be the most economical base course for this project. Alternatively, crushed concrete may be used as base material. Limerock or crushed concrete should follow the FDOT specification for material qualifications and placement. Place limerock or crushed concrete base in maximum 6‐inch lifts and compact to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density according to specification in ASTM D‐1557. Perform compliance testing for the base course to a depth of 1 foot at a frequency of one test per 5,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater. Effects of Groundwater: One of the most critical influences on the pavement performance in Western Central Florida is the relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. Many roadways and parking areas have been destroyed as a result of deterioration of the base and the base/surface course bond. 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 12 inches for crushed concrete and 18 inches for limerock. Landscape Drains and Curbing: If needed, where landscaped sections are located adjacent to parking lots or driveways, we recommend that drains be installed around these landscaped sections to protect the asphalt pavement from excess rainfall and over irrigation. Migration of irrigation water from the landscape areas to the interface between the asphalt and the base usually occurs unless landscape drains are installed. This migration often causes separation of the wearing surface from the base and subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. The underdrains or strip drains should be routed to a positive outfall at the pavement area catch basins. Curbing around landscaped sections adjacent to parking lots and driveways should be constructed with full‐depth curb sections. Using extended curb sections which lie directly on top of the final asphalt level, or eliminating curbing entirely, can allow migration of irrigation water from the landscaped areas to the interface between the asphalt and the base. This migration often causes


separation of the wearing surface from the base and subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. 5.2.2 Stormwater Ponds General: Based on the information provided by you, we understand that the project includes two stormwater ponds; one located near the northwestern extent of the site and one near the southwestern extent of the site. The stormwater pond footprints currently consist of grassland. ECS drilled four soil test borings identified as borings B‐11 through B‐14. Borings B‐11 and B‐12 were conducted within the northwestern pond and borings B‐13 and B‐14 within the southwestern pond. Borings B‐11 and B‐12 generally encountered fine sand in the upper six to 12 feet overlaying clayey sand. Borings B‐13 and B‐14 generally encountered fine sand in the upper two to six feet overlaying clayey sand. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.

5.3 SINKHOLE POTENTIAL

Based on our subsurface exploration, no significant indications were observed that would suggest the presence of sinkholes, voids, or in‐filled voids within the site, such as caving or collapsing borehole. During drilling, boreholes appeared to be stable. Additionally, the presence of a cohesive layer indicates limited ability for raveling of looser soils. No sinkhole remediation actions are recommended at this time.


6.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

6.1.1 Subgrade Preparation, Stripping and Grubbing The subgrade preparation should consist of complete removal of existing vegetation. Additionally, any underground utilities or underground tanks that will not be part of the new construction should be properly capped and abandoned or removed. Stripping soft or unsuitable material from the building and pavement areas should also be performed. Unsuitable material consists of soils with more than 5 percent organics content or more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Any other soft or unsuitable materials from the 10‐foot expanded building and 5‐foot expanded pavement limits. ECS should be called to verify that topsoil and unsuitable surficial materials have been completely removed prior to the placement of Structural Fill or construction of structures. 6.1.2 Proofrolling After removing all unsuitable surface materials, and prior to the placement of any structural fill or other construction materials, the exposed subgrade should be examined by the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled with previously approved construction equipment having a minimum axle load of 20 tons (e.g. large vibratory rollers). The areas subject to proofrolling should be traversed by the equipment in two perpendicular (orthogonal) directions with at least 10 overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. This procedure is intended to assist in identifying any localized yielding materials. In the event that unstable or “pumping” subgrade is identified by the proofrolling, those areas should be marked for repair prior to the placement of any subsequent structural fill or other construction materials. Methods of repair of unstable subgrade, such as undercutting or moisture conditioning should be discussed with the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the appropriate procedure with regard to the existing conditions causing the instability. A test pit(s) may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials in the area of the instability to help in determined the cause of the observed unstable materials and to assist in the evaluation of the appropriate remedial action to stabilize the subgrade. 6.1.3 Subgrade Stabilization Subgrade Compaction: Upon completion of subgrade documentation, the exposed subgrade within the 10‐foot expanded building and 5‐foot expanded pavement limits should be moisture conditioned to within ‐1 and +3 % of the soil’s optimum moisture content and be compacted with suitable equipment (minimum 10‐ton roller) to a depth of 10 inches. Subgrade compaction within the expanded building and pavement limits should be to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). ECS should be called on to document that proper subgrade compaction has been achieved.


Subgrade Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be well defined, including the limits for buildings, pavements, fills, and slopes, etc. Field density testing of subgrades will be performed at frequencies in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1.3.1 Frequency of Subgrade Compaction Testing

Location Frequency of Tests

Expanded Building Limits 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.

Pavement Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft.

Outparcels/SWM Facilities 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.

All Other Non‐Critical Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft.

6.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS

6.2.1 Structural Fill Materials Unsatisfactory Materials: Unsuitable material typically consists of soils with more than 5 percent organics content or more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, as well as topsoil and organic materials (OH, OL). In some cases, soils with more than 5 percent organics content or more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve may be used at depths greater than 4 feet below pavement subgrades. Borrow Suitability: The following Engineered/Structural Fill types are recommended for use on this project: Fine sand (SP) can be utilized as structural and pavement subgrade fill material provided that the natural moisture content is within a desirable range to obtain compaction. Fine sand with silt (SP‐SM) and fine sand with clay (SP‐SC) can be utilized as structural and pavement subgrade fill material provided that the natural moisture content is within a desirable range to obtain compaction. It should be noted that due to higher fine content, soil may be more sensitive to moisture and may require more handling. Clayey fine sand (SC) is more difficult to use as fill because they are more moisture sensitive. These soils may be used as structural fill but will require moisture conditioning. It is recommended that all materials to be used for Engineered Fill be analyzed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to their use on the site. Subgrade soils disturbed by contractor operations shall be recompacted to the specifications of this report. Subgrade soils which are excessively wet but otherwise suitable by soil classification (inorganic soil material meeting the specifications above) are not considered unsuitable by definition and shall be moisture conditioned and recompacted.


6.2.2 Compaction Structural Fill Compaction: Assuming that the organic content of the soils does not exceed 10 percent, structural fill should be placed in loose lifts, which do not exceed 12 inches in thickness, and should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D‐1557) within the lift thickness. Generally, the moisture content of the fill materials should be maintained between 2 percentage points below to the optimum moisture content for the fill material, as determined by ASTM D‐1557. Fill placed in non‐structural areas (e.g. grassed areas) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density according to ASTM D‐1557, in order to avoid significant subsidence. ECS should be called on to document that proper fill compaction has been achieved. Fill Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be well defined, including the limits of the fill zones for building and pavements at the time of fill placement. Grade controls should be maintained throughout the filling operations. All filling operations should be observed on a full‐time basis by a qualified representative of the construction testing laboratory to determine that the minimum compaction requirements are being achieved. Field density testing of fills will be performed at the frequencies shown in Table 6.2.2.1, but not less than 1 test per lift.

Table 6.2.2.1 Frequency of Compaction Tests in Fill Areas

Location Frequency of Tests

Expanded Building Limits 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft. per lift

Pavement Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift

Utility Trenches 1 test per 200 linear ft. per lift

Outparcels/SWM Facilities 1 test per 5,000 sq. ft. per lift

All Other Non‐Critical Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift

Compaction Equipment: Compaction equipment suitable to the soil type being compacted should be used to compact the subgrades and fill materials. A vibratory steel drum roller should be used for compaction of coarse‐grained soils (Sands) as well as for sealing compacted surfaces. Fill Placement Considerations: Fill materials should not be placed on excessively wet soils. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.

At the end of each work day, all fill areas should be graded to facilitate drainage of any precipitation and the surface should be sealed by use of a smooth‐drum roller to limit infiltration of surface water. During placement and compaction of new fill at the beginning of each workday, the Contractor may need to scarify existing subgrades to a depth on the order of 4 inches so that a weak plane will not be formed between the new fill and the existing subgrade soils. Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to prevent ponding of water which has a tendency to degrade subgrade soils.


If any problems are encountered during the earthwork operations, or if site conditions deviate from those encountered during our subsurface exploration, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified immediately. We recommend that favorable unit rates be established in the construction contract for undercutting and backfilling. Unit rates could be established as follows:

a. Undercut and backfill with Imported Engineered Fill, per cubic yard in place; b. Undercut and backfill with On‐site Borrow Engineered Fill, per cubic yard in place; c. Undercut and backfill with Aggregate Base Material, per ton; d. Undercut and backfill with No. 57 Stone (wet areas and below footings), per ton; e. Dispose of undercut material off‐site, per cubic yard, f. Place medium duty, woven and non‐woven geotextile fabrics, per square yard. Suitable

non‐woven fabric for use in stabilization and separation would include Mirafi 160N or equivalent. Suitable woven fabric would include Mirafi 600X or equivalent.

The Geotechnical Engineer should be called on to recommend and/or approve material type and placement procedures where subgrade remediation is required.

6.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS

Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1 to 3‐inch thick “mud mat” of “lean” concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel. Footing Subgrade Observations: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. It will be important to have the geotechnical engineer of record observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete, to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed. Any undercut should be backfilled with lean concrete (f’c ≥ 1,000 psi at 28 days) up to the original design bottom of footing elevation; the original footing shall be constructed on top of the hardened lean concrete. Slab Subgrade Verification: A representative of ECS should be called on to observe exposed subgrades within the expanded building limits prior to Structural Fill Placement to assure that adequate subgrade preparation has been achieved. A proofrolling using a drum roller or loaded dump truck should be performed in their presence at that time. Once subgrades have been prepared to the satisfaction of ECS, subgrades should be properly compacted and new Structural Fill can be placed. Existing subgrades to a depth of at least 10 inches and all Structural Fill should be moisture conditioned to within ‐1/+3 percentage points of optimum moisture content then be compacted to the required density. If there will be a significant time lag between the site grading work and final grading of concrete slab areas prior to the placement of the subbase stone and


concrete, a representative of ECS should be called on to verify the condition of the prepared subgrade. Prior to final slab construction, the subgrade may require scarification, moisture conditioning, and re‐compaction to restore stable conditions.

6.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS

Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be generally suitable for support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrade should be observed and probed for stability by ECS to evaluate the suitability of the materials encountered. Any loose or unsuitable materials encountered at the utility pipe subgrade elevation should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted Structural Fill or pipe bedding material. Utility Backfilling: The granular bedding material should be at least 4 inches thick, but not less than that specified by the project drawings and specifications. Fill placed for support of the utilities, as well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for Structural Fill given in this report. Compacted backfill should be free of topsoil, roots, ice, or any other material designated by ECS as unsuitable. The backfill should be moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be made and maintained in accordance with OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and slopes and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations and slopes as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

6.5 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Moisture Conditioning: During rainy season of the year, delays and additional costs should be anticipated. At these times, moisture conditioning may be required. The rainy season in Florida is normally between June and September. Alternatively, during the drier times of the year, moisture may need to be added to the soil to provide adequate moisture for successful compaction according to the project requirements. Subgrade Protection: Measures should also be taken to limit site disturbance, especially from rubber‐tired heavy construction equipment, and to control and remove surface water from development areas, including structural and pavement areas. It would be advisable to designate a haul road and construction staging area to limit the areas of disturbance and to prevent construction traffic from excessively degrading sensitive subgrade soils and existing pavement areas. Haul roads and construction staging areas could be covered with excess depths of aggregate to protect those subgrades. The aggregate can later be removed and used in pavement areas.


Surface Drainage: Surface drainage conditions should be properly maintained. Surface water should be directed away from the construction area, and the work area should be sloped away from the construction area at a gradient of 1 percent or greater to reduce the potential of ponding water and the subsequent saturation of the surface soils. At the end of each work day, the subgrade soils should be sealed by rolling the surface with a smooth drum roller to minimize infiltration of surface water. Erosion Control: The surface soils may be erodible. Therefore, the Contractor should provide and maintain good site drainage during earthwork operations to maintain the integrity of the surface soils. All erosion and sedimentation controls should be in accordance with sound engineering practices and local requirements.


7.0 CLOSING

ECS has prepared this report of findings, evaluations, and recommendations to guide geotechnical‐related design and construction aspects of the project.

The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by your office. If any of this information is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted immediately in order that we can review the report in light of the changes and provide additional or alternate recommendations as may be required to reflect the proposed construction. We recommend that ECS be allowed to review the project’s plans and specifications pertaining to our work so that we may ascertain consistency of those plans/specifications with the intent of the geotechnical report. Field observations, monitoring, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation. We recommend that the owner retains these quality assurance services and that ECS be allowed to continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to provide general consultation as issues arise. ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.


APPENDIX A – Drawings & Reports

Site Location Diagram Boring Location Diagram

7/18/2017

Service Layer Credits: USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

41:19461 OF 2

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

RCM

LBD WESLEY CHAPEL, LLC WESLEY CHAPEL FL 33543

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM TERRACES AT WESLEYCHAPEL GEO

NTS

SOURCE: Charlan, Brook & Associates

FIGURE NO.2

SCALENTS

DATE07-17-17

DRAWN BYRCM

CHECKED BYSVS

JOB NO.41-1946

Approximate Locations of Borings

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

Terraces at Wesley ChapelNew River Road and SR 54

Wesley Chapel, Florida

N


APPENDIX B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs Boring Logs B‐1 through B‐14

Reference Notes for Boring Logs (FINAL 10-13-2016) © 2016 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH, QP4

SPT5

(BPF)

CONSISTENCY7

(COHESIVE)

<0.25 <3 Very Soft

0.25 - <0.50 3 - 4 Soft

0.50 - <1.00 5 - 8 Medium Stiff

1.00 - <2.00 9 - 15 Stiff

2.00 - <4.00 16 - 30 Very Stiff

4.00 - 8.00 31 - 50 Hard

>8.00 >50 Very Hard

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS

SPT5

DENSITY

<5 Very Loose

5 - 10 Loose

11 - 30 Medium Dense

31 - 50 Dense

>50 Very Dense

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

1Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-09 (Visual-Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.

2To be consistent with general practice, “POORLY GRADED” has been removed from GP, GP-GM, GP-GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.

3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].

4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).

5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). “N-value” is another term for “blow count” and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf).

6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.

7Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-09 Note 16.

8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-09.

RELATIVE

AMOUNT7

COARSE GRAINED

(%)8

FINE

GRAINED

(%)8

Trace <5 <5

Dual Symbol (ex: SW-SM)

10 10

With 15 - 20 15 - 25

Adjective (ex: “Silty”)

>25 >30

WATER LEVELS6

WL Water Level (WS)(WD)

(WS) While Sampling

(WD) While Drilling

SHW Seasonal High WT

ACR After Casing Removal

SWT Stabilized Water Table

DCI Dry Cave-In

WCI Wet Cave-In

DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

SS Split Spoon Sampler PM Pressuremeter Test

ST Shelby Tube Sampler RD Rock Bit Drilling

WS Wash Sample RC Rock Core, NX, BX, AX

BS Bulk Sample of Cuttings REC Rock Sample Recovery %

PA Power Auger (no sample) RQD Rock Quality Designation %

HSA Hollow Stem Auger

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION

DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES

Boulders 12 inches (300 mm) or larger

Cobbles 3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm)

Gravel: Coarse ¾ inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm)

Fine 4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to ¾ inch)

Sand: Coarse 2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)

Medium 0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)

Fine 0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve)

Silt & Clay (“Fines”) <0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

MATERIAL1,2

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

VOID

BRICK

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

FILL

3 MAN-PLACED SOILS

GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW WELL-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SP POORLY-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SM SILTY SAND

sand-silt mixtures

SC CLAYEY SAND

sand-clay mixtures

ML SILT non-plastic to medium plasticity

MH ELASTIC SILT

high plasticity

CL LEAN CLAY low to medium plasticity

CH FAT CLAY

high plasticity

OL ORGANIC SILT or CLAY

non-plastic to low plasticity

OH ORGANIC SILT or CLAY

high plasticity

PT PEAT highly organic soils

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

(SP) SAND, brown, moist, very loose

(SP-SM) SAND WITH SILT, brown, moist, loose

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, medium denseto very loose

2212

2222

3223

3323

4543

798

1198

667

1075

3

4

4

5

9

17

17

13

12

CLIENT

LBD Wesley Chapel, LLC

Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-1

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Terraces at Wesley Chapel GEO

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

LBD Wesley Chapel, LLCSITE LOCATION

New River Road and SR 54, Wesley Chapel, Pasco County, FLNORTHING EASTING STATION

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

WL GNE WS WD BORING STARTED 07/11/17 CAVE IN DEPTH

WL(SHW) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 07/12/17 HAMMER TYPE Manual

WL RIG ATV FOREMAN Justin M DRILLING METHOD Mud RotaryDRILLING METHOD Mud Rotary

DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATIONBLOWS/FT

1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

S-12

SS

SS

SS

18

6

18

18

6

18


Weight-of-Hammer (WOH) 38.5-43.5'

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, orangish gray, wet,medium dense, with Limestone

END OF BORING @ 45'

962

WOHWOHWOH

857

8

12

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-1

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

(SP) SAND, gray and brown, moist, loose tovery loose

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, medium dense

2222

2112

2322

3332

1243

121213

8109

578

767

4

2

5

6

6

25

19

15

13

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-2

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18


(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, loose, withLimestone

LIMESTONE, Highly Weathered, with Clay

END OF BORING @ 40'

343

756

7

11

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-2

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

(SP) SAND, gray and brown, moist, very loose


(SP-SM) SAND WITH SILT, brown and gray,wet, medium dense

1111

1212

3222

3221

2112

9810

878

556

6911

2

3

4

4

2

18

15

11

20

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-3

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18

(SP-SM) SAND WITH SILT, brown and gray,wet, medium dense

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, loose

END OF BORING @ 40'

233

323

6

5

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-3

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

(SP) SAND, brown, moist, loose to very loose

(SP-SM) SAND WITH SILT, brown, wet, loose

(SP) SAND, brown, wet, medium dense


2463

2222

2122

2322

2234

6710

887

8910

355

10

4

3

5

5

17

15

19

10

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-4

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18


END OF BORING @ 40'

344

222

8

4

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-4

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18


(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, loose tomedium dense

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, orangish gray, wet, loose,with Limestone

2332

2112

2121

3332

3467

7810

7911

448

343

6

2

3

6

10

18

20

12

7

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-5

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, orangish gray, wet, loose,with Limestone


50% Loss of Circulation (LOC)

END OF BORING @ 40'

1179

251813

16

31

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-5

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

(SP) SAND, gray and brown, moist to wet, looseto very loose

(SP-SM) SAND WITH SILT, brown, wet,medium dense


2312

2122

2232

4434

1234

8811

8109

71012

446

4

3

5

7

5

19

19

22

10

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-6

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18


100% Loss of Ciculation (LOC)

END OF BORING @ 40'

455

333

10

6

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-6

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18




2112

1122

2324

4232

1343

111415

687

445

843

2

3

5

5

7

29

15

9

7

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-7

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

S-12

SS

SS

SS

18

18

3

18

18

3


Weight-of-Hammer (WOH) 38.5-39'


END OF BORING @ 45'

444

WOH12

50/3

8

3

50/3

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-7

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18


(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray and orange, wet,medium dense to loose

3222

2122

2222

3322

3223

131111

567

436

332

4

3

4

5

4

22

13

9

5

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-8

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray and orange, wet,medium dense to loose


END OF BORING @ 40'

988

111315

16

28

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-8

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18


(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, moist, loose

(SP-SM) SAND WITH SILT, gray, wet, mediumdense

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, medium denseto loose

2321

2111

2121

2111

1234

7910

12129

346

9810

5

2

3

2

5

19

21

10

18

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-9

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, wet, medium denseto loose

(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, orangish gray,wet, firm

END OF BORING @ 40'

223

234

5

7

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-9

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

18

18

18



2321

2112

11

WOH2

2223

8633

889

477

442

211

5

2

1

4

9

17

14

6

2

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-10

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER








DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 2

35

40

45

50

55

60

S-10

S-11

SS

SS

18

18

18

18


Weight-of-Hammer (WOH) 35-36.5'

100% Loss of Ciculation (LOC)(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, gray, wet, soft

END OF BORING @ 40'

111

222

2

4

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-10

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


2 OF 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

(SP) SAND, gray and brown, moist, loose tovery loose



END OF BORING @ 15'

2221

2121

2343

2334

4333

6712

4

3

7

6 10.7

6 9.4

19

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-11

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

(SP) SAND, light brown, moist, loose to veryloose

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, moist, mediumdense

(SP) SAND, light gray, wet, dense

END OF BORING @ 15'

2322

2121

2234

45811

13121419

111616

5

38.8

510.9

13 15.6

26

32

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-12

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

24

24

24

24

24

18


(SC) CLAYEY SAND, gray, moist to wet, looseto medium dense

END OF BORING @ 15'

2221

1222

2322

3246

45912

121413

4

4

7.3

5 7.9

6 19.6

14

27

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-13

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

24

24

24

24

24

18

24

24

24

24

24

18

(SP) SAND, light brown, moist, loose

(SC) CLAYEY SAND, brown and orangish gray,moist, loose to dense

(CL) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, gray, wet, verystiff

END OF BORING @ 15'

2332

2234

1247

7101318

15161816

101113

6 6.7

516.8

6

23

34

24

CLIENT


Job #:

41:1946

BORING #

B-14

SHEET

PROJECT NAME


ARCHITECT-ENGINEER







DE

PT

H (

FT

)

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SA

MP

LE

DIS

T.

(IN

)

RE

CO

VE

RY

(IN

)

SURFACE ELEVATION


WA

TE

R L

EV

ELS

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

FT

)

BLO

WS

/6"

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS



PLASTICLIMIT %

WATERCONTENT %

LIQUIDLIMIT %


RQD% REC.%


1 OF 1


APPENDIX C – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Test Results Summary

B-11S-4 6.00 - 8.00 10.7 SP 4.2S-5 8.00 - 10.00 9.4 SP-SM 5.6

B-12S-2 2.00 - 4.00 8.8 SP 4.9S-3 4.00 - 6.00 10.9 SP 4.1S-4 6.00 - 8.00 15.6 SC 24

B-13S-2 2.00 - 4.00 7.3 SP 3.1S-3 4.00 - 6.00 7.9 SP 3.6S-4 6.00 - 8.00 19.6 SC 33

B-14S-1 0.00 - 2.00 6.7 SP 4.4S-2 2.00 - 4.00 16.8 SC 17

Laboratory Testing Summary

Notes: 1. ASTM D 2216, 2. ASTM D 2487, 3. ASTM D 4318, 4. ASTM D 1140, 5. See test reports for test method, 6. See test reports for test method

Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content (ASTM D 2974)

Project No. 41:1946

Project Name: Terraces at Wesley Chapel GEO

PM: Robert C. Mixson

PE: Surendra V Sagi

Printed On: Wednesday, July 19, 2017

SampleSource

SampleNumber

Depth(feet)

MC1

(%)Soil

Type2 LL

Atterberg Limits3

PL PI

PercentPassingNo. 200Sieve4

MaximumDensity

(pcf)

Moisture - Density (Corr.)5

OptimumMoisture

(%)

CBRValue6 Other

Page 1 of 1

ecs florida, llc

Documents