October 11, 2011 Re-Issued November 15, 2011

Transcription

1 Shadow Wood Investors LLC 425 W New England Avenue, Suite 425 Winter Park, FL October 11, 2011 Re-Issued November 15, 2011 LOCATIONS: Atlanta Daytona Beach Fort Myers Fort Pierce Gainesville Jacksonville Kissimmee Leesburg Miami Ocala Orlando (Headquarters) Palm Coast Panama City Pensacola Rockledge Sarasota Tampa West Palm Beach Attention: Reference: Mr. Ryan Stahl, Manager Geotechnical Exploration Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E and F International Drive Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Project No UES Report No v2 Dear Mr. Stahl: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a geotechnical exploration at the above referenced site in Orange County, Florida. The scope of our exploration was planned in conjunction with and authorized by you. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We have included recommendations for seasonal high groundwater table, preliminary site preparation and pavement sections. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully Submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Certificate of Authorization No. 549 Andrew S. Wilderotter, P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager Aravind V. Rangaswamy, M.S., P.E. Date: Senior Project Manager Florida Registration No Maggie Blvd. C Orlando, Florida C (407) C Fax (407)

2 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION SHADOW WOOD PD - PARCELS D, E & F INTERNATIONAL DRIVE ORLANDO, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA UES PROJECT NO UES REPORT NO v2 PREPARED FOR: Shadow Wood Investors LLC 425 W New England Avenue, Suite 425 Winter Park, Florida Attention : Mr. Ryan Stahl PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences 3532 Maggie Boulevard Orlando, Florida (407) November 15, 2011 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

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PURPOSE SITE DESCRIPTION SOIL SURVEY TOPOGRAPHY SCOPE OF SERVICES FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY TESTING GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ASSUMPTIONS ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS Layer Components Stabilized Subgrade Base Course Surface Course Effects of Groundwater Landscape Areas SITE PREPARATION FOR PAVEMENT AREAS LIMITATIONS CLOSURE...8 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Summary of Published Soil Data... 2 Table II: Laboratory Methodologies... 3 Table III: Generalized Soil Profile... 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A USGS Location Map... A-1 APPENDIX B Boring Location Plan... B-1 Boring Logs... B-2 Key to Boring Logs Sheet... B-3 APPENDIX C ASFE Document... C-1 Constraints and Restrictions... C-2 i

4 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v2 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that this project consists of developing 3 retail parcels (Parcels D, E and F) associated with Shadow Wood PD northeast of the intersection of International Drive and Central Florida Parkway in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. We have been furnished with a preliminary site plan showing the parcel locations as well as requested boring locations and depths. We understand that you will be responsible for designing and constructing the site paving and drainage and that you are not responsible for the building pad areas. We have also assumed that this site is part of a master stormwater system and as such, this exploration does not address the stormwater system design. Please note that this exploration was preliminary in nature and conducted to acquire general subsurface information only. Once the final site plan is developed, a final exploration will be necessary to provide specific geotechnical recommendations for design. 2.0 PURPOSE The purposes of this preliminary exploration were: to explore the subsurface conditions at general locations identified, to provide our estimates of the seasonal high groundwater level to identify areas of unsuitable soils or muck preliminary pavement recommendations preliminary site preparation recommendations This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a proposal for these services at your request. Our exploration was not designed to specifically address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than those performed in this study. We would be pleased to conduct an exploration to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you so desire. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located within Section 7, Township 24 South, Range 29 East in Orange County, Florida. More specifically, the site consists of three parcels totalling 3.95 acres located northeast of the intersection of International Drive and Central Florida Parkway in Orlando, as shown on the attached Figure A-1. At the time of our evaluation, the subject property consisted of an undeveloped parcel with a thick vegetative cover. 1

5 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v2 3.1 SOIL SURVEY There are two (2) soil types mapped within the general area of the site according to the USDA NRCS Soil Survey of Orange County. A brief summary of the mapped surficial soil types are presented in Table I. Soil Symbol 3 Soil Type Basinger fine sand, depressional TABLE I SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED SOIL DATA 1 Hydrologic Group Drainage Characteristics Depth of Published Seasonal High GWT (feet) D Poorly Drained +2 to 0 44 Smyrna fine sand B/D Poorly Drained 0 to 1½ 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Lake Jessamine, Florida quadrangle map, ground surface elevation across the site area is approximately +90 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). A copy of a portion of the USGS Map is included in Appendix A. 4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The services conducted by Universal during our preliminary geotechnical exploration are as follows: Drill eleven (11) SPT borings within the anticipated construction area of the site to a depth of 10 feet below existing grades. Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations. Conduct laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their engineering properties. Preparing a preliminary report which documents the results of our preliminary exploration and laboratory testing program with analysis and preliminary geotechnical considerations. 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION The soil borings were performed with an ATV mounted drilling rig. Universal located the test borings by measuring from existing on-site landmarks shown on an aerial photograph. No survey control was provided to Universal and our boring locations should be considered approximate. The approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix B. 2

6 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v2 The SPT borings designated as B-1 to B-11 on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix B, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. SPT sampling was performed continuously to detect variations in the near surface soil profile. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). We selected representative soil samples from the borings for laboratory testing to aid in classifying the soils and to help to evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. A summary of the tests performed is shown in Table II. Test Performed Grain Size Analysis (#200 wash only) Moisture Content GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE TABLE II LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Number Reference Performed 6 ASTM D 1140 Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75 - µm) sieve ASTM D 2216 Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Mass The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix B. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix B. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations is presented in Table III. For detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. Typical Depth (feet, bls) From To Surface 10* TABLE III GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE Soil Description Very loose to medium dense fine SAND [SP], SAND with silt [SP-SM] and silty fine SAND [SM] * denotes maximum termination depth of the borings 3

7 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v2 8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL We measured the groundwater levels in the boreholes during drilling operations on September 28, The measured groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring logs. The groundwater level depths were measured between approximately 1.8 and 5.0 feet below existing grades at the boring locations. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. 8.2 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL Based on historical data, the rainy season in Central Florida is between June and September of the year. In order to estimate the seasonal high water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following: Measured groundwater level Drainage characteristics of existing soil types Current & historical rainfall data Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc.) Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, retention basins, etc.) On-site types of vegetation Review of available data (soil surveys, USGS maps, etc.) Based on the results of our field exploration and the factors listed above, we estimate that the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations may form from standing water above existing ground surface to 1.5 feet below existing grades as shown on the boring logs. Please note that the groundwater level data is presented in feet below existing ground surface since survey control was not provided at the boring locations. We strongly recommend that elevation data at the boring locations be established during future explorations in order to reference the groundwater data to a specific datum. It should be noted that the estimated seasonal high water levels do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should the impediments to surface water drainage be present, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities, exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels might exceed our seasonal high estimates. Further, it should be understood that changes in the surface hydrology and subsurface drainage from on-site and/or off-site improvements could have significant effects on the normal and seasonal high groundwater levels. 4

8 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v2 9.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 ASSUMPTIONS We assume that flexible (asphaltic) pavements will be used for the new parking and roadway areas at this project. At the time of this preliminary exploration, specific traffic loading information was not provided to us. We have assumed the following conditions for our recommended minimum pavement design. the subgrade soils are prepared as described in Section 9.4 of this report a twenty (20) year design life terminal serviceability index (P t ) of 2.5 reliability of 85 percent total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E 18 SAL) up to 35,000 for light duty pavements - car and pickup truck traffic (parking stalls, etc.) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E 18 SAL) up to 150,000 for heavy duty pavements occasional heavy truck traffic (delivery, trash collection, service lanes, etc.) 9.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS 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 IV. Service Level Light Duty Heavy Duty TABLE IV MINIMUM ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT COMPONENT THICKNESSES Maximum Traffic Loading up to 35,000 E 18 SAL up to 150,000 E 18 SAL Surface Course (inches) Layer Component Base Course (inches) Stabilized Subgrade (inches) 1½ For loading conditions greater than those presented in Table IV, we recommend that you have a complete pavement design performed based on projected traffic data Stabilized Subgrade 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 compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) value. 5

9 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v2 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 full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 2 tests, whichever is greater Base Course We recommend the base course be limerock, or crushed concrete. Limerock should have a minimum LBR of 100 and should be mined from a FDOT-approved source. Place limerock in maximum 6-inch lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Crushed concrete generally provides a cost-effective alternative material in lieu of limerock or soil cement base courses and are particularly resistant to adverse effects from high groundwater conditions. If crushed concrete is selected as the base course material for flexible pavement sections, we recommend that the material meet FDOT Road and Bridge Construction specifications section 204 requirements. Compaction testing of the base course should be performed to full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 2 tests, whichever is greater Surface Course In light-duty areas where there is occasional truck traffic, but primarily passenger cars, we recommend using an asphaltic concrete, FDOT Type S-III, which has a minimum stability of 1,200 pounds. Specific requirements for Type S asphaltic concrete are outlined in the current FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Compact the asphalt to a minimum of 95 percent of the Marshall design density. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and to perform laboratory densities. 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 Effects of Groundwater One of the most critical influences on the pavement performance in Central Florida is the relationship between the pavement base course and the seasonal high groundwater level. Sufficient separation will need to be maintained between the bottom of base course and the anticipated seasonal high groundwater level. 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 at least 18 inches for a limerock base course. 6

10 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v Landscape Areas In the event that landscape areas adjacent to the pavements include large mounds (>1 foot) of poorly draining organic topsoils or silty/clayey sands, we recommend that landscape drains be provided to protect the roadway against adverse effects from over-irrigation or excess rainfall. Poorly draining silty and clayey material causes the irrigation and rainwater to perch and migrate laterally into the pavement components, which eventually compromises the integrity of the pavement section. 9.3 SITE PREPARATION FOR PAVEMENT AREAS Following is a list of our preliminary site preparation procedures to prepare the new parking areas for the proposed construction. 1. Perform necessary remedial dewatering prior to any earthwork operations. 2. Strip the pavement areas of vegetation, roots, organics, debris, rubble, etc. Stripping should be performed at least 5 feet beyond pavement edges. 3. Proof-roll the exposed subsurface soils under the observation of Universal, to locate any unforeseen soft areas of unsuitable soils, and to increase the density of the shallow loose fine sand soils. If deemed necessary by Universal, in areas that continue to "yield", remove any deleterious materials and replace with a clean, compacted sand backfill [SP]. Within areas of limited fill (< 2 feet), native subgrade compaction to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) should be achieved to a depth of at least 2 feet below the bottom of base course level. Please note that the surficial soils at this site consist of fine sands with varying quantities of silt [SP-SM, SM]. These soils tend to readily hold moisture and may require more stringent compactive efforts than clean fine sands. 4. Place fill in maximum 12 inch lifts with each lift compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Each lift should be tested and approved prior to the placement of subsequent lifts. The first lift of fill should consist of clean fine sands [SP] (less than 5 percent fines). Thereafter, fill soils containing between 5 and 12 percent fines (SP-SM or SP-SC) may be used, however, strict moisture control may be required. Vibrations produced during vibratory compaction operations at the site may be significantly noticeable within 100 feet and may cause distress to adjacent structures if not properly regulated. Provisions should be made to monitor these vibrations so that any necessary modifications in the compaction operations can be made in the field before potential damages occur. 7

11 Shadow Wood PD, Parcels D, E & F UES Project No Orlando, Orange County, Florida UES Report No v LIMITATIONS Please note that this report is based on a preliminary exploration program with the scope of services, general boring locations and depths as directed by the client. The information submitted in this preliminary report is based on data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report has not been prepared to meet the full needs of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties, and any use of this report by them without the guidance of the geotechnical engineer who prepared it constitutes improper usage which could lead to erroneous assumptions, faulty conclusions, and other problems. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations, below the termination depth of the borings, or within unexplored areas of the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of future explorations or actual construction. Deleterious soils were not encountered at our preliminary boring locations; however, we cannot completely preclude their presence. This report should not be used for estimating such items as cut and fill quantities. This preliminary exploration has been designed to provide information on general subsurface conditions and to identify potential subsurface constraints that may affect the cost of construction. The information obtained from this preliminary exploration will need to be supplemented with a design level geotechnical exploration, once the site plan has been finalized. A further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document attached within Appendix C "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" prepared by ASFE/Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. We also present documents in Appendix C titled "Constraints and Restrictions", to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report CLOSURE We appreciate this opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on this phase of the project and look forward to providing follow up explorations and geotechnical engineering analyses as the project progresses through the design phase. If you have any questions concerning this report or when we may be of any further service, please contact us. * * * * * * * * * 8

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32