1073 ATLANTIC BLVD CIV24-0002 - Drainage Report_SSfor
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Ash Properties
Jacksonville, Florida
Project No: 23107
12/20/2023
Alex R. Acree, P.E.THE NAMED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING
SHEETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 61G15-23.004, F. A. C. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITALL
SIGNED AND SEALED BY ALEX R. ACREE, P.E. ON THE DATE ADJACENT TO THE SEAL.
PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED AND THE
SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON ANY ELECTRONIC COPIES.
PE # 73155
CA # 26535
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Site Location
Methodology
Pre-Development Summary
Peak Rate Factor
Drainage Patterns
Soil Data
Basin Characteristics
Time of Concentration
Tailwater Conditions
Peak Rate Factor
Post-Development (Proposed) Evaluation
Drainage Patterns
Basin Characteristics
Time of Concentration
Pre/Post-Development Comparison
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Project No: 23107
Executive Summary
Project Summary
Treatment Volume Requirements
4.Attachments
Section Description
1.
Post-Development Summary
2.Pre-Development (Existing) Evaluation
3.
Permanent Pool Volume Requirements
ICPR Analysis Results
Geotechnical Report
Pre/Post-Development Map
Location Map
Normal Water Level Determination
Recovery Time Calculations
SWMF Mean Depth Check
ICPR Analysis Results
Aerial Map
USGS Quad Map
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Soils Map
Time of Concentration Calculations
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Date:
A.
B.
C.
Attachment B,
Attachment C,
Aerial Map
USGS Quad Map
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Site Location
This analysis is for the development of a 3-story mini storage building, paved parking lot, and associated
infrastructure to an existing single story mini storage lot. This report supports an application to permit a
proposed wet detention pond for treatment of the associated stormwater requirements of the proposed
improvements.
The stormwater runoff from the improved portions of the site will be conveyed with onsite storm pipe
system and ultimately receiving treatment through the proposed stormwater treatment facility (SWMF).
Once treated, the runoff will discharge through a control structure weir to an existing ditch.
Section 1 - Executive Summary
Project Summary
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Attachment D,
The project is situated in Section 38, Township 2 South, Range 29 East, Atlantic Beach, Duval County,
Florida. More particularly, the property is located on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard. Refer to
Attachment A, Location Map. As required by the SJRWMD, the following items are also included as
reference material:
This drainage report has been prepared in accordance with current requirements of the St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJRWMD) and St. Johns County (SJC). In addition, storm events
(frequencies), run off calculations, discharge criteria, pipe hydraulics, and evaluation methods (including
computer software applications), etc., have been based on the guidelines/requirements of these
permitting entities.
Stormwater design for this site will incorporate a proposed wet detention pond. ICPR was used to route
the various storms through the Storm Water Management Facility (SWMF). The SCS Unit Hydrograph
Method hydrographs were utilized to create the pre- and post-development runoff hydrographs. Peak
flow and max stage considerations were given to the Mean Annual-24hr (MA-24hr), 10yr-24hr and 25yr-
24hr storms. The 100yr-24hr storm was also modeled for SWMF capacity only.
Methodology
Date:
D.
Area CN Tc
(ac)(min)
1.29 98 10
E.
Area CN C Tc
(ac)(min)
1.10 92 0.69 10
0.19 97 0.90 10
(ft)(ft)(ft)
-1.00 9.90 6.50 0.13
Provided Treatment Volume
1
SWMF
BOT
Elev
Required Treatment
Volume
(ac-ft)(ac-ft)
0.20
Drainage Basin
Drainage Basin
Pre Basin A
TOB Weir
Elev
Wet Detention Pond Calculation Summary:
Post Basin 1
Post-Development Summary
The post-development project area is made up of two drainage basins, one taking into account all water
captured by the front parking lot and sidewalk area with the other accounting for the remaining
proposed developed area, which will receive treatment through the stormwater management facility.
The discharge of the SWMF will discharge into the existing swale, which is considered to be “POST-
BNDY” within the analysis. Refer to Attachment I, Post- Development Map, for a graphical
representation of the proposed drainage characteristics of the project area. A summary of the post-
development drainage basin area is as follows:
Impervious Area
(ac)
0.63
Post Basin 2 0.17
Pre-Development Summary
The pre-development basin area conveys stormwater via existing grate inlets and pipes to the boundary
(an existing curb inlet along Atlantic Boulevard on the south side of the property). Refer to Attachment I,
Pre-Development Map, for graphical representations of the existing drainage characteristics of the
project area. A summary of the pre-development drainage basin areas are as follows:
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Date:
F.
Please note that the values provided in the table above come from the ICPR model for pre- and post-
development conditions. The stage and discharge rates are found in Attachment G.
MA-24hr
5yr-24hr 5.9 3.51
Pre-Development Post-Development
PRE-BNDY POST-BNDY
(cfs)
8.99 6.69
4.71 1.78
7.09 4.9310yr-24hr
25yr-24hr
Storm
(cfs)
The Pre-Development vs. Post-Development peak inflow are as follows:
(ft)
7.34
25yr-24hr5yr-24hr 10yr-24hr
Design High Water (DHW) Results from ICPR Model:
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
100yr-24hr (SJRWMD)
Location: Duval County, Florida
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
SWMF 1 6.96 7.08 7.21
(ft)(ft)(ft)
MA-24hrSWMF(ft)
6.79
Pre/Post-Development Comparison
SECTION 2
PRE-DEVELOPMENT (EXISTING) EVALUATION
Date:
A.
B.
C.
Pre Basin A
Area (ac)Curve Number
1.26 98
98
Hydrologic Soil Group
Impervious Area
Pervious HSG D - Good Condition Open Space
Sum
Composite CN
Soil Name
Lynn Haven fine sand, 0 to 2 percent
Urban Land-Leon-Boulogne complex, 0
Soils Map Symbol
35
71
Hydrologic Soil Group
A/D
A/D
Basin Characteristics
The runoff curve number used in the pre-development analysis was based on TR55 methodology. The
soils present on the site are of hydrologic soil group A/D. Hydrologic soil group D was selected to
represent the site, as the area is not located within the depressional wetlands.
0.02 80
1.29
Section 2 - Pre-Development (Existing) Evaluation
The site currently containts a 1-story self storage building with existing utilities and drainage structures.
The south of the property slopes toward Atlantic Boulevard. The drainage basin was further separated
into the hydrologic soil group as depicted on the SCS Soil Survey.
Based on the SCS Soil Survey of St. Johns County, there are two soils present on the site. See Attachment
E, Soils Map. In summary, the soils types are listed as follows:
Drainage Patterns
Soil Data
Location: Duval County, Florida
Checked By: ARA
Project No:23107
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Date:
D.
E.
F.
Tailwater Conditions
The receiving rear lot swale was estimated to have a maximum stage of 7.0’ due to the estimated
seasonal high-water level being 5.0. The conservative estimate stage (7.0’) was utilized for the SWMF’s
tailwater condition throughout the stormwater modeling in ICPR.
Due to the presence of existing drainage features & mild slopes, the Peak Rate Factor (K) = 484 was used
for the onsite basin.
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Time of Concentration
Stormwater runoff for Pre-Basin A was estimated to travel as shallow concentrated flow and was
calculated using methodology set forth in TR-55 as demonstrated in Attachment F, Time of
Concentration Calculations. The Tc used for Pre-Basin A is 10 minutes.
Peak Rate Factor
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
SECTION 3
POST-DEVELOPMENT (PROPOSED) EVALUATION
Date:
A.
B.
27,417 0.63 0.95
3,725 0.09 1.00
16,748 0.38 0.2
47,890 1.10
0.69
7,617 0.17 0.95
536 0.01 0.2
8,153 0.19
0.90
C.
D.
Area
(ac)C
98
100
80
Curve Number
The limits of proposed improvements consist of approximately 1.29 acres of which 0.80 acres are to be
considered impervious. The runoff from the improvements are to be routed through a proposed wet
detention bulkhead stormwater management facility and discharged into an existing rear lot swale.
Please see Attachment I, for graphical representations of the proposed drainage characteristics of the
project area.
The drainage basin curve number is calculated as the composite of the impervious areas and pervious areas.
The following is a breakdown of the site surface coverage, runoff coefficient and curve number calculations:
92
Area
(sf)
Pervious HSG D - Good Condition Open Space
Sum
Composite CN
Post Basin 1
Hydrologic Soil Group
Impervious Area
Normal Water Level
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Section 3 - Post-Development (Proposed) Evaluation
Drainage Patterns
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Basin Characteristics
Time of Concentration
Peak Rate Factor
Time of concentration was estimated from the most remote part of the catchment area to the design node.
The minimum time of concentration of 10 minutes was conservatively assumed in the post-development
analysis for the basin area.
Following engineering convention, a Peak Rate Factor (K) = 484 was used in the analysis of the post-
development basin.
Post Basin 2
Hydrologic Soil Group Area
(sf)
Area
(ac)Curve Number C
Impervious Area 98
Pervious HSG D - Good Condition Open Space 80
Sum
Composite CN 97
Date:
E.
F.
A.
1in x 47,890 sf
B.
2.5in x 27,417 sf
(cf)
5,712
5,712 cf 0.13 ac ft 6.39
8,883 cf 0.20 ac ft 6.50
2.5-inches of rainfall over the impervious area from section 3B
Vt = PAimpervious= =5,712 cf = 0.13 ac-ft12 in/ft
The greater of the two SJRWMD treatment volume criteria determine the treatment volume required for the
SWMF. The treatment volume required and provided are summarized below:
(cf)
3,991
Required TV (SJRWMD) =
Provided TV =
(ac-ft)
Required Treatment
Volume
At Stage:
At Stage:
Wet Detention Treatment Volume
TV (a)
(sf)(sf)
47,890 27,417
Total Drainage
Area
Total
Impervious
Area
TV(b)Required TV Greater of
(a) or (b)
(cf)
5,712 0.13
23107 Matthews | DCCM
SWMF 1:
Vr = PA = =3,991 cf = 0.09 ac-ft
1-inch of rainfall over the improved drainage area from section 3B
12 in/ft
Normal Water Level Determination
Treatment Volume Requirements
The normal water level was estimated to be 5.0 due to the seasonal high water level being between 4.0' and
5.0' below ground surface . Refer to Attachment G, Geotechnical Report, provided by Universal Engineering
Sciences Project No. 0930.2300154.0000, for boring logs with groundwater elevations and estimated
seasonal high.
The stormwater management facility was designed in accordance with St. Johns River Water Management
District criteria Chapter 62-330 of the SJRWMD Applicants Handbook and St. Johns County. The treatment
volume is to be detained by the discharge weir, which is set at or above the stage required to provide the
required treatment volume. Methodology and calculations demonstrating acceptability are below:
Location: Duval County, Florida
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Project No:
Date:
Stage Area Area
(ft)(ft^2)(ac.)
-1.00 1,317 0.03
2.00 2,373 0.05
5.00 3,725 0.09
9.90 8,813 0.20
G.
DA =
C =
R =
RT =
WS =
CF =
LRZ =
1.10 0.69
0.33 ac-ft
therefore adequate storage is provided to satisfy the permanent pool criteria.
Littoral Zone Factor
(if littoral zone provided, LZF = 1.0, otherwise, LZF = 1.5)
PPV SWMF 1=x 1.0 =0.26 ac-ft
The total stormwater facility’s volume below the NWL elevation is:
23107
0.13
0.33
1.00
GB
NWL
TOB
(WS x CF)
Where:
x 30in x 21daysac x
153 days x 12in/ft
minimum residence time = 21 days
the length of the wet season = 153 days
Conversion Factor = 12
SWMF 1:
PPV = x LZF
The permanent pool volume is calculated using equation 29-4 of the SJRWMD handbook which is:
(DA x C x R x RT)
Project No:
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Vol Sum
(ac.-ft)
0.00 BOT
Level Description
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Matthews | DCCM
The permanent pool volume (PPV) has been designed to provide a residence time of 21 days during the wet
season in each SWMF. The permanent pool is that portion of the pond which is designed to always hold
water. This provides the wet detention SWMF the additional capacity to remove pollutants through uptake
of nutrients by algae, absorption of nutrients and heavy metals onto the bottom, biological oxidation of
organic materials and sedimentation.
Calculations for SWMF 1 PPV are summarized below:
Drainage area to pond (ac)
the runoff coefficient
wet seasonal rainfall depth = 30 inches
SWMF Stage vs. Storage Volume
Permanent Pool Volume Requirements
Date:
H.
h1 =
h2 =
h =
Q =
A =
D =
h =
TVS =
NWL =
Q =
V =
T =
A =
C =
D =
g =
TVS - OrificeInvert (NWL)
Half Treatment Level - NWL
(h1 + h2) / 2
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
SWMF 1:
Checked By:
Recovery Time Calculations
ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
A bleed-down orifice will allow a slow, controlled rate for the facility’s recovery. The following calculations
were utilized to size the diameter of the circular bleed-down orifice to achieve a desired recovery time.
SJRWMD requires the facility to recover one-half of the required treatment volume in a 24-30 hour time
constraint.
Calculations for SWMF 1 Recovery time are summarized below:
depth of water above the flow line (center) of the orifice
Required Treatment Volume Stage
Normal Water Level
Rate discharge
Vhalf Treatment / T
Q / C √2gh
√(4𝐴/π)
Where:
The calculated required diameter to provide a recovery time of 24 hours is as follows:
Volume
Recovery Time
Orifice area
Orifice coefficient = 0.60
Orifice diameter
Gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec2
Date:
1.12 in
Using:1.10 inches, the recovery time is calculated as follows:
h1 =
h2 =
h =
Q =
T =
1.10 in
25.09 hours
H average
CA √2gh
0.48
0.99
25.09T (hr)
1.10
0.0066
0.03
D (in)
A (sf)
Q (cfs)
0.60C
H2
Vhalf Treatment / Q
The recovery time for half the treatment volume using the design
SWMF 1Calculated Orifice Sizing
H1 (ft)
1/2 TV Req (cf)
1/2 TV Stage (ft)
results in a time of :
1.12
TVS - OrificeInvert (NWL)
Half Treatment Level - NWL
(h1 + h2) / 2
D (in)
1.50
2,856
5.48
Location: Duval County, Florida
Project No:23107
Checked By: ARA
The calculated required diameter to provide a recovery time of 24hr is:
0.03
0.60
0.0069
Q (cfs)
C
A (sf)
5.48
0.48
24.00
1/2 TV Stage (ft)
H2
T (hr)
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
1/2 TV Req (cf)
SWMF 1
1.50
2,856
Calculated Orifice Sizing
H1 (ft)
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Matthews | DCCM
Date:
I.
PPV 14,555 cf
A 3,725 sf
J.
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
The mean depth of a wet detention pond is required to be between 2-ft and 8-ft in accordance with
SJRWMD and SJC rules. The mean depth equation is the permanent pool volume divided by the pond
surface area at the normal water level (NWL). The mean depth is calculated using the equation as follows:
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
SWMF Mean Depth Check
Storm
Pre-Development Post-Development
PRE-BNDY POST-BNDY
(cfs)(cfs)
10yr-24hr 7.09 4.93
25yr-24hr 8.99 6.69
MA-24hr 4.71 1.78
5yr-24hr 5.9 3.51
MA-24hr 6.79
9.90
5yr-24hr 6.96
10yr-24hr 7.08
25yr-24hr 7.21
100yr-24hr 7.34
ICPR Analysis Results
The post development analysis results for peak stage in the proposed wet detention
SJRWMD
Storm Event
SWMF 1
Peak Stage (ft)TOB (ft)
The results for mean depth of each pond is as follows:
MD ===3.91 ft
Mean Depth (ft)
3.91
Provided PPV (cf)
14,555
NWL Area (sf)
3,725
SWMF
1
SECTION 4
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
Date:
Project No:
ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
LGM
23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:
Created By:12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
LOCATION MAP
SITE
N
ATTACHMENT B
AERIAL MAP
Date:
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
AERIAL MAP
SITE
N
USGS QUAD MAP
ATTACHMENT C
Date:
Project No:23107
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
USGS QUAD MAP
Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
SITE
N
ATTACHMENT D
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
Date:
PANNEL NUMBER: 12031C0408J
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Project No:23107
SITE
N
ATTACHMENT E
SOILS MAP
Date:
Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
Created By:LGM 12/20/2023
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
SOILS MAP
N
SITE
ATTACHMENT F
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Date:
100 ft n:0.012
9.8 ft Slope:0.005 ft/ft
9.3 ft P2:5.2 in 2yr/24hr
T1:1.77 min
Length:66.41 ft Slope:0.007 ft/ft
High Pt:9.3 ft Velocity:1.73 ft/sec
Low Pt:8.82 ft
Surface:T2:0.64 min
Length:0 ft Depth:0 ft
High Pt:0 ft Bottom:0 ft
Low Pt:0 ft Side Slope:0 ft/ft
Slope:0.00 ft/ft Type:
Surface:RH:0.00 ft
n:0.022 Velocity:0.00 ft/sec
T3:0.00 min
Length:0 ft Depth:0 ft
High Pt:0 ft Bottom:0 ft
Low Pt:0 ft Side Slope:0 ft/ft
Slope:0.00 ft/ft Type:
Surface:RH:0.00 ft
n:0.022 Velocity:0.00 ft/sec
T3:0.00 min
TC:2.41 min
USE TC:10 min
Rectangular
Clean
Time of concentration for Rect./Vee/Trap.channel from Manning's Equation.
Clean
Rectangular
LGM 12/20/2023
Time of concentration for shallow concentrated flow from SCS TR-55 velocity method.
Time of concentration for Rect./Vee/Trap.channel from Manning's Equation.
High Pt:
Low Pt:
Project No:
TC = 0.007 * (n*L)0.8* / (P2
0.5 * S0.4)
AsphaltSurface:
Paved
Length:
23107 Matthews | DCCM
Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH
ATTACHMENT F
Checked By: ARA
Location: Duval County, Florida
Created By:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS
Stormwater Basin: Pre Basin A
Time of concentration for sheet flow from Manning-Kinematic wave equation (1976)
ATTACHMENT G
ICPR ANALYSIS RESULTS
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
1 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Background Image: NODAL NETWORK
Simple Basin: U: PRE BASIN A
Scenario:SJRWMD
Node:T: PRE BNDY
Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph
Infiltration Method:Curve Number
Time of Concentration:10.0000 min
Max Allowable Q:9999.00 cfs
Time Shift:0.0000 hr
Unit Hydrograph:UH484
Peaking Factor:484.0
Area:1.2900 ac
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
2 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Curve Number:98.0
% Impervious:0.00
% DCIA:0.00
% Direct:0.00
Rainfall Name:
Comment:
Simple Basin Runoff Summary [SJRWMD]
Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow
[cfs]
Time to Max
Flow [hrs]
Total
Rainfall [in]
Total Runoff
[in]
Area [ac]Equivalent
Curve
Number
% Imperv % DCIA
U: PRE
BASIN A
100yr-24hr 11.36 12.0167 12.00 11.78 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00
U: PRE
BASIN A
10yr-24hr 7.09 12.0167 7.50 7.28 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00
U: PRE
BASIN A
25yr-24hr 8.99 12.0167 9.50 9.28 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00
U: PRE
BASIN A
5yr-24hr 5.90 12.0167 6.25 6.02 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00
U: PRE
BASIN A
MA-24hr 4.71 12.0167 5.00 4.77 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00
Node: T: PRE BNDY
Scenario:SJRWMD
Type:Time/Stage
Base Flow:0.00 cfs
Initial Stage:4.54 ft
Warning Stage:8.57 ft
Boundary Stage:
Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft]
0 0 0 0.0000 4.54
0 0 0 12.0000 4.54
0 0 0 24.0000 4.54
Comment:
Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD]
Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage
[ft]
Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta
Stage [ft]
Max Total
Inflow [cfs]
Max Total
Outflow [cfs]
Max Surface
Area [ft2]
T: PRE BNDY 100yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 11.36 0.00 0
T: PRE BNDY 10yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 7.09 0.00 0
T: PRE BNDY 25yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 8.99 0.00 0
T: PRE BNDY 5yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 5.90 0.00 0
T: PRE BNDY MA-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 4.71 0.00 0
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
3 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Simple Basin: U: POST BASIN 1
Scenario:SJRWMD
Node:A: SWMF 1
Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph
Infiltration Method:Curve Number
Time of Concentration:10.0000 min
Max Allowable Q:9999.00 cfs
Time Shift:0.0000 hr
Unit Hydrograph:UH484
Peaking Factor:484.0
Area:1.1000 ac
Curve Number:92.0
% Impervious:0.00
% DCIA:0.00
% Direct:0.00
Rainfall Name:
Comment:
Simple Basin Runoff Summary [SJRWMD]
Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow
[cfs]
Time to Max
Flow [hrs]
Total
Rainfall [in]
Total Runoff
[in]
Area [ac]Equivalent
Curve
Number
% Imperv % DCIA
U: POST
BASIN 1
100yr-24hr 9.54 12.0167 12.00 11.04 1.1000 92.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 1
10yr-24hr 5.84 12.0167 7.50 6.56 1.1000 92.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 1
25yr-24hr 7.49 12.0167 9.50 8.55 1.1000 92.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 1
5yr-24hr 4.80 12.0167 6.25 5.33 1.1000 92.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 1
MA-24hr 3.75 12.0250 5.00 4.10 1.1000 92.0 0.00 0.00
Simple Basin: U: POST BASIN 2
Scenario:SJRWMD
Node:T: POST BNDY 2
Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph
Infiltration Method:Curve Number
Time of Concentration:10.0000 min
Max Allowable Q:9999.00 cfs
Time Shift:0.0000 hr
Unit Hydrograph:UH484
Peaking Factor:484.0
Area:0.1900 ac
Curve Number:97.0
% Impervious:0.00
% DCIA:0.00
% Direct:0.00
Rainfall Name:
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
4 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Comment:
Simple Basin Runoff Summary [SJRWMD]
Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow
[cfs]
Time to Max
Flow [hrs]
Total
Rainfall [in]
Total Runoff
[in]
Area [ac]Equivalent
Curve
Number
% Imperv % DCIA
U: POST
BASIN 2
100yr-24hr 1.67 12.0167 12.00 11.66 0.1900 97.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 2
10yr-24hr 1.04 12.0167 7.50 7.16 0.1900 97.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 2
25yr-24hr 1.32 12.0167 9.50 9.16 0.1900 97.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 2
5yr-24hr 0.87 12.0167 6.25 5.91 0.1900 97.0 0.00 0.00
U: POST
BASIN 2
MA-24hr 0.69 12.0167 5.00 4.66 0.1900 97.0 0.00 0.00
Node: A: SWMF 1
Scenario:SJRWMD
Type:Stage/Area
Base Flow:0.00 cfs
Initial Stage:5.00 ft
Warning Stage:9.90 ft
Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2]
5.00 0.0860 3746
6.00 0.1030 4487
7.00 0.1220 5314
8.00 0.1420 6186
9.90 0.2020 8799
Comment:
Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD]
Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage
[ft]
Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta
Stage [ft]
Max Total
Inflow [cfs]
Max Total
Outflow [cfs]
Max Surface
Area [ft2]
A: SWMF 1 100yr-24hr 9.90 7.34 0.0010 9.54 8.64 5610
A: SWMF 1 10yr-24hr 9.90 7.08 0.0010 5.84 4.93 5380
A: SWMF 1 25yr-24hr 9.90 7.21 -0.0010 7.49 6.69 5494
A: SWMF 1 5yr-24hr 9.90 6.96 0.0010 4.80 3.52 5280
A: SWMF 1 MA-24hr 9.90 6.79 0.0010 3.75 1.78 5140
Drop Structure Link: D: CS-1
Scenario:SJRWMD
From Node:A: SWMF 1
To Node:T: POST BNDY 1
Upstream Pipe Downstream Pipe
Invert:4.75 ft Invert:4.50 ft
Manning's N:0.0120 Manning's N:0.0120
Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
5 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Link Count:1
Flow Direction:Both
Solution:Combine
Increments:0
Pipe Count:1
Damping:0.0000 ft
Length:90.00 ft
FHWA Code:1
Entr Loss Coef:0.50
Exit Loss Coef:0.10
Bend Loss Coef:0.00
Bend Location:0.00 dec
Energy Switch:Energy
Max Depth:2.00 ft Max Depth:2.00 ft
Bottom Clip
Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:Op Table:
Ref Node:Ref Node:
Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000
Top Clip
Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:Op Table:
Ref Node:Ref Node:
Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000
Pipe Comment:
Weir Component
Weir:1
Weir Count:1
Weir Flow Direction:Both
Damping:0.0000 ft
Weir Type:Horizontal
Geometry Type:Rectangular
Invert:9.57 ft
Control Elevation:9.57 ft
Max Depth:4.50 ft
Max Width:3.50 ft
Fillet:0.00 ft
Bottom Clip
Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:
Ref Node:
Top Clip
Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:
Ref Node:
Discharge Coefficients
Weir Default:3.200
Weir Table:
Orifice Default:0.600
Orifice Table:
Weir Comment: TOP OF BOX (OFFLINE CONTROL STRUCTURE)
Weir Component
Weir:2
Weir Count:1
Weir Flow Direction:Both
Damping:0.0000 ft
Weir Type:Sharp Crested Vertical
Geometry Type:Rectangular
Invert:6.50 ft
Control Elevation:6.50 ft
Max Depth:3.07 ft
Max Width:3.50 ft
Fillet:0.00 ft
Bottom Clip
Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:
Ref Node:
Top Clip
Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:
Ref Node:
Discharge Coefficients
Weir Default:3.200
Weir Table:
Orifice Default:0.600
Orifice Table:
Weir Comment: WEIR 1
Weir Component
Weir:3
Weir Count:1
Weir Flow Direction:Both
Damping:0.0000 ft
Weir Type:Horizontal
Geometry Type:Circular
Invert:5.00 ft
Control Elevation:5.00 ft
Bottom Clip
Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:
Ref Node:
Top Clip
Default:0.00 ft
Op Table:
Ref Node:
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
6 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Max Depth:0.09 ft
Discharge Coefficients
Weir Default:3.200
Weir Table:
Orifice Default:0.600
Orifice Table:
Weir Comment: ORIFICE
Drop Structure Comment:
Link Min/Max Conditions [SJRWMD]
Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs]Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta
Flow [cfs]
Max Us Velocity
[fps]
Max Ds Velocity
[fps]
Max Avg
Velocity [fps]
D: CS-1 - Pipe 100yr-24hr 8.64 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
1
100yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
2
100yr-24hr 8.61 0.00 -0.02 2.93 2.93 2.93
D: CS-1 - Weir:
3
100yr-24hr 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Pipe 10yr-24hr 4.93 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
1
10yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
2
10yr-24hr 4.89 0.00 -0.01 2.43 2.43 2.43
D: CS-1 - Weir:
3
10yr-24hr 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Pipe 25yr-24hr 6.69 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
1
25yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
2
25yr-24hr 6.65 0.00 -0.01 2.69 2.69 2.69
D: CS-1 - Weir:
3
25yr-24hr 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Pipe 5yr-24hr 3.51 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
1
5yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
2
5yr-24hr 3.48 0.00 -0.01 2.17 2.17 2.17
D: CS-1 - Weir:
3
5yr-24hr 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Pipe MA-24hr 1.78 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
1
MA-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
D: CS-1 - Weir:
2
MA-24hr 1.74 0.00 -0.01 1.72 1.72 1.72
D: CS-1 - Weir:
3
MA-24hr 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Node: T: POST BNDY 1
Scenario:SJRWMD
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
7 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Type:Time/Stage
Base Flow:0.00 cfs
Initial Stage:4.54 ft
Warning Stage:8.57 ft
Boundary Stage:
Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft]
0 0 0 0.0000 4.54
0 0 0 12.0000 4.54
0 0 0 24.0000 4.54
Comment:
Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD]
Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage
[ft]
Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta
Stage [ft]
Max Total
Inflow [cfs]
Max Total
Outflow [cfs]
Max Surface
Area [ft2]
T: POST BNDY 1 100yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 8.64 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 1 10yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 4.93 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 1 25yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 6.69 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 1 5yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 3.51 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 1 MA-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 1.78 0.00 0
Node: T: POST BNDY 2
Scenario:SJRWMD
Type:Time/Stage
Base Flow:0.00 cfs
Initial Stage:6.25 ft
Warning Stage:8.89 ft
Boundary Stage:
Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft]
0 0 0 0.0000 6.25
0 0 0 12.0000 6.25
0 0 0 24.0000 6.25
Comment:
Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD]
Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage
[ft]
Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta
Stage [ft]
Max Total
Inflow [cfs]
Max Total
Outflow [cfs]
Max Surface
Area [ft2]
T: POST BNDY 2 100yr-24hr 8.89 6.25 0.0000 1.67 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 2 10yr-24hr 8.89 6.25 0.0000 1.04 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 2 25yr-24hr 8.89 6.25 0.0000 1.32 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 2 5yr-24hr 8.89 6.25 0.0000 0.87 0.00 0
T: POST BNDY 2 MA-24hr 8.89 6.25 0.0000 0.69 0.00 0
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
8 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Simulation: 100yr-24hr
Scenario:SJRWMD
Run Date/Time:12/20/2023 9:44:59 AM
Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08
General
Run Mode:Normal
Year Month Day Hour [hr]
Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000
End Time:0 0 0 30.0000
Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec]
Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500
Max Calculation Time:30.0000
Output Time Increments
Hydrology
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Surface Hydraulics
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Restart File
Save Restart:False
Resources & Lookup Tables
Resources Lookup Tables
Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set:
Extern Hydrograph Set:
Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set:
Green-Ampt Set:
Vertical Layers Set:
Impervious Set:
Tolerances & Options
Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr
Max Iterations:6
Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec
dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global
Max dZ:1.0000 ft
Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD
Rainfall Amount:12.00 in
Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr
Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft
Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2
Energy Switch (1D):Energy
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
9 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Comment:
Simulation: 10yr-24hr
Scenario:SJRWMD
Run Date/Time:12/20/2023 9:45:32 AM
Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08
General
Run Mode:Normal
Year Month Day Hour [hr]
Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000
End Time:0 0 0 30.0000
Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec]
Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500
Max Calculation Time:30.0000
Output Time Increments
Hydrology
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Surface Hydraulics
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Restart File
Save Restart:False
Resources & Lookup Tables
Resources Lookup Tables
Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set:
Extern Hydrograph Set:
Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set:
Green-Ampt Set:
Vertical Layers Set:
Impervious Set:
Tolerances & Options
Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr
Max Iterations:6
Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec
dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global
Max dZ:1.0000 ft
Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD
Rainfall Amount:7.50 in
Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
10 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft
Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2
Energy Switch (1D):Energy
Comment:
Simulation: 25yr-24hr
Scenario:SJRWMD
Run Date/Time:12/20/2023 9:45:59 AM
Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08
General
Run Mode:Normal
Year Month Day Hour [hr]
Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000
End Time:0 0 0 30.0000
Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec]
Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500
Max Calculation Time:30.0000
Output Time Increments
Hydrology
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Surface Hydraulics
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Restart File
Save Restart:False
Resources & Lookup Tables
Resources Lookup Tables
Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set:
Extern Hydrograph Set:
Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set:
Green-Ampt Set:
Vertical Layers Set:
Impervious Set:
Tolerances & Options
Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr
Max Iterations:6
Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec
dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global
Max dZ:1.0000 ft
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
11 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD
Rainfall Amount:9.50 in
Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr
Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft
Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2
Energy Switch (1D):Energy
Comment:
Simulation: 5yr-24hr
Scenario:SJRWMD
Run Date/Time:12/20/2023 9:46:26 AM
Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08
General
Run Mode:Normal
Year Month Day Hour [hr]
Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000
End Time:0 0 0 30.0000
Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec]
Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500
Max Calculation Time:30.0000
Output Time Increments
Hydrology
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Surface Hydraulics
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Restart File
Save Restart:False
Resources & Lookup Tables
Resources Lookup Tables
Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set:
Extern Hydrograph Set:
Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set:
Green-Ampt Set:
Vertical Layers Set:
Impervious Set:
Tolerances & Options
Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
12 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Max Iterations:6
Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec
dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global
Max dZ:1.0000 ft
Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD
Rainfall Amount:6.25 in
Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr
Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft
Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2
Energy Switch (1D):Energy
Comment:
Simulation: MA-24hr
Scenario:SJRWMD
Run Date/Time:12/20/2023 9:46:52 AM
Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08
General
Run Mode:Normal
Year Month Day Hour [hr]
Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000
End Time:0 0 0 30.0000
Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec]
Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500
Max Calculation Time:30.0000
Output Time Increments
Hydrology
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Surface Hydraulics
Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min]
0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000
Restart File
Save Restart:False
Resources & Lookup Tables
Resources Lookup Tables
Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set:
Extern Hydrograph Set:
Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set:
Green-Ampt Set:
Vertical Layers Set:
Impervious Set:
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
13 OF 13
C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\12/20/2023
Tolerances & Options
Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr
Max Iterations:6
Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec
dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global
Max dZ:1.0000 ft
Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD
Rainfall Amount:5.00 in
Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr
Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft
Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2
Energy Switch (1D):Energy
Comment:
ATTACHMENT H
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
REPORT OF A
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Atlantic Self Storage – 1073 Atlantic Boulevard
Atlantic Beach, Florida
August 7, 2023
PROJECT NO. 0930.2300154.0000
REPORT NO. 2031580
Prepared for:
Ash Properties, Inc.
7880 Gate Parkway - Suite 300
Jacksonville, Florida 32256
Prepared by:
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
5561 Florida Mining Boulevard South
Jacksonville, Florida 32257-3648
(904) 296-0757
Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
August 7, 2023
Ash Properties, Inc.
7880 Gate Parkway - Suite 300
Jacksonville, Florida 32256
Attention: Mr. Gabe Boeman
Reference: REPORT OF A GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Atlantic Self Storage – 1073 Atlantic Boulevard
Atlantic Beach, Florida
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 and Report No. 2031580
Dear Mr. Boeman:
Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC has completed a subsurface exploration at the site of the
proposed development located in Atlantic Beach, Florida. These services were provided in
general accordance with our Proposal No. 2019517, dated May 16, 2023. This report contains the
results of our exploration, an engineering evaluation with respect to the project characteristics
described to us, and recommendations for groundwater considerations, foundation design,
pavement design, fill suitability, and site preparation. A summary of our findings is as follows:
Beneath 1 to 3-1/2 inches of asphalt and 4 to 7 inches of limerock, the borings generally
encountered loose fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) in the upper 2 to 4 feet
underlain by medium dense to dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) to a
depth range of 12 to 17. This is underlain by loose to medium dense fine sand (SP) and
fine sand with silt (SP-SM) to the deepest boring termination depths of 30 feet. As an
exception, boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics
(Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet.
We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations between 5.0 to 6.4 feet below
the existing grade. The seasonal high groundwater level is estimated to be approximately
4.0 to 5.0 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration.
Boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at
a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We recommend that we observe the overexcavation of
this material during construction to better identify the material encountered by the
boring, determine the need for overexcavation, and better delineate the vertical and
horizontal extent of this material, if warranted. As an alternative, we can perform
additional auger borings in this area to better identify the material and delineate the
vertical and horizontal extent prior to construction.
Assuming the building area will be constructed in accordance with our Site Preparation
Recommendations, we have recommended the proposed structure be supported on
conventional, shallow spread foundations with an allowable soil bearing pressure of
2,500 pounds per square foot.
A rigid or flexible pavement section could be used on this project. Flexible pavement
combines the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an
appropriate and cost-effective combination of available construction materials. Concrete
pavement has the advantage of the ability to “bridge” over isolated soft areas, and it
typically has a longer service life than asphalt pavement. Disadvantages of rigid
pavement include an initial higher cost and more difficult patching of distressed areas
than occurs with flexible pavement.
Based on the boring performed in the stormwater management area (LA-1), the soils
described as fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM), as encountered throughout
the 25-foot boring depth, as indicated on the attached Boring Logs and Soil Boring
Profiles in Appendix A, are considered suitable for use as structural fill. It should be
understood that all soils excavated from below the water table may be excessively wet
and may require stockpiling or spreading to dry prior to placement and compaction. It
should also be noted that soils described as fine sand with silt (SP-SM) may take longer
to dry and be more difficult to work with than those described as fine sand (SP) due to
higher fines and organic contents. The suitability of these soils for use as structural fill
will be highly dependent on the contractor’s ability to adequately dry and work these
materials.
We recommend only normal, good practice site preparation techniques to prepare the
existing subgrade to support the proposed structure. These techniques include clearing
the construction areas, stripping topsoils and vegetation, overexcavation of organic soils,
as warranted, removing any existing structures and foundations, pavements, and utilities,
dewatering as warranted, compacting the subgrade and placing engineered fill to the
desired grades.
We trust this report meets yours needs and addresses the geotechnical issues associated with the
proposed construction. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project
and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should
have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, LLC
Certificate of Authorization No. 549
Stephen R. Weaver, P.E. Jacob Fuller
Geotechnical Services Manager Geotechnical Project Manager
FL P.E. Number 37389
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 1
2.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................... 2
2.3.1 SPT Borings ................................................................................................................... 2
2.3.2 Auger Borings ................................................................................................................ 2
2.4 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................. 3
3.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 3
3.1 SOIL SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 4
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 4
4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 4
4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 5
4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS .............................................................................................. 5
4.3.1 Bearing Pressure ............................................................................................................ 5
4.3.2 Foundation Size ............................................................................................................. 6
4.3.3 Bearing Depth ................................................................................................................ 6
4.3.4 Bearing Material ............................................................................................................ 6
4.3.5 Settlement Estimates ...................................................................................................... 6
4.3.6 Floor Slab ....................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 PAVEMENTS....................................................................................................................... 7
4.4.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 7
4.4.2 Asphalt (Flexible) Pavements ........................................................................................ 7
4.4.3 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements .......................................................................................... 9
4.4.4 Effects of Groundwater ................................................................................................ 11
4.4.5 Curbing ........................................................................................................................ 11
4.4.6 Construction Traffic ..................................................................................................... 11
4.5 SITE PREPARATION........................................................................................................ 11
4.6 RETENTION POND CONSIDERATION ......................................................................... 13
4.6.1 Fill Suitability .............................................................................................................. 13
4.6.2 Seasonal High Groundwater ........................................................................................ 14
4.6.3 Pond Parameters ........................................................................................................... 14
5.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 14
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In this report, we present the results of the subsurface exploration of the site for the proposed
development located in Atlantic Beach, Florida. We have divided this report into the following
sections:
SCOPE OF SERVICES - Defines what we did
FINDINGS - Describes what we encountered
RECOMMENDATIONS - Describes what we encourage you to do
LIMITATIONS - Describes the restrictions inherent in this report
APPENDICES - Presents support materials referenced in this report
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project information was provided to us in recent correspondence with you. We were provided
with a copy a Proposed Site Plan for the project dated October 10, 2021 and with a Map
Showing Survey of the site prepared by Boatwright Land Surveyors. Inc. dated April 14, 1998.
These plans show the boundary limits for the property, the roadways located adjacent to the site,
the requested boring locations, and the layout of the existing and proposed construction.
We understand that the project consists of a new approximately three-story self storage facility
with adjacent pavement areas and a stormwater management area. Detailed structural loads have
not been provided, therefore we assume maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 150
kips and 6 klf, respectively. Detailed grading information has not been provided, therefore we
assume maximum elevating fill heights will not exceed 2 feet above existing grades.
We note that since the applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon
project characteristics, most specifically: improvement locations, grade alterations, and actual
structural loads applied, UES must review the preliminary and final site and grading plans, and
structural design loads to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Without such review our
recommendations should not be relied upon for final design or construction of any site
improvements.
2.2 PURPOSE
The purposes of this exploration were:
to explore the general subsurface conditions at the site for future development;
to interpret and evaluate the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed
construction; and
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
2
to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for groundwater considerations,
foundation design, pavement design, fill suitability, and 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. Universal Engineering
Sciences would be pleased to perform these services, if you desire.
Our exploration was confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed
construction. Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological
conditions. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than performed in
this study. We will be pleased to conduct an investigation to evaluate the probable effect of the
regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you desire.
2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION
A field exploration was performed on July 19 and 20, 2023. The approximate boring locations
are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix A. The approximate boring
locations were determined in the field by our personnel using a hand-held GPS unit and should
be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. Samples
of the soils encountered will be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 60 days unless we
are notified otherwise.
2.3.1 SPT Borings
To explore the subsurface conditions within the building and stormwater retention areas, we
located and drilled seven (7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of 25 to 30 feet
below the existing ground surface in general accordance with the methodology outlined in
ASTM D 1586. A summary of this field procedure is included in Appendix A. Split-spoon soil
samples recovered during performance of the borings were visually classified in the field and
representative portions of the samples were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation.
2.3.2 Auger Borings
To explore the subsurface conditions within the proposed pavement areas, we located and drilled
one (1) auger boring to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The
auger boring was drilled in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1452.
A summary of this field procedure is included in the Field Procedures section of Appendix A.
Representative soil samples recovered from the auger borings were returned to our laboratory for
further evaluation.
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
3
2.4 LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were returned to our office and
classified by a geotechnical engineer. The samples were visually classified in general accordance
with ASTM D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System).
Eleven (11) fines content tests, eleven (11) moisture content tests, and one (1) organic content
test were conducted in the laboratory on representative soil samples obtained from the borings.
These tests were performed to aid in classifying the soils and to help quantify and correlate
engineering properties. The results of these tests are presented on the Boring Logs in Appendix
A. A brief description of the laboratory procedures used is also provided in Appendix A.
3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 SOIL SURVEY
Based on the Soil Survey for Duval County, Florida, as prepared by the US Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the predominant predevelopment soil types at the site are
identified as Lynn Haven (35) and Urban Land-Leon- Boulogne complex (71).
A summary of characteristics of these soil series were obtained from the Soil Survey and are
included in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Summary of Soil Survey Information
Soil Type Constituents Hydrologic
Group
Natural
Drainage
Soil
Permeability
(Inches/Hr)
Seasonal
High Water
Table
Lynn Haven
(35)
0-13”
13-21”
21-62”
62-80”
Fine sand
Fine sand
Fine sand, loamy
fine sand
Fine sand
B/D Very Poorly
Drained
0-13”
13-21”
21-62”
62-80”
6.0 – 20
6.0 – 20
0.6 – 6.0
2.0 – 20
0 – 0.5
Urban Land
(71) - - - - - - -
Leon
(71)
0-18”
18-37”
37-80”
Fine sand
Fine sand, loamy fine
sand
Fine sand
A/D Poorly
Drained
0-18”
18-37”
37-45”
45-80”
6.0 – 20
0.6 – 6.0
2.0 – 20
0.2 – 2.0
0.5 – 1.5
Boulogne
(71)
0-31”
31-39”
39-80”
Fine sand
Fine sand, loamy fine
sand
Fine sand
C/D Poorly
Drained
0-6”
6-16”
16-31”
31-39”
39-80”
6.0 – 20
2.0 – 6.0
6.0 – 20
0.6 – 2.0
0.06 – 0.2
0.5 – 1.5
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site of the proposed construction is located at the existing Atlantic Self Storage facility at
1073 Atlantic Boulevard in Atlantic Beach, Florida. The site consists of existing one-story
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
4
storage buildings which visually appear to be in relatively good condition. Most of the site
consists of asphalt surface which has moderate block cracking and some isolated potholes
throughout. The site visually appears to slope down to Atlantic Boulevard at the south of the site.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix A: Boring
Location Plan and Boring Logs. It should be noted that soil conditions will vary away from and
between boring locations. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally
based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples and a limited number of
laboratory tests. Also, see Appendix A: Key to Boring Logs, for further explanation of the
symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. The following table summarizes the soil
conditions encountered.
TABLE 2
General Soil Profile
Typical depth (ft) Soil Descriptions From To
0 0.1 to 0.3 Asphalt (1 to 3-1/2”)
0.1 to 0.3 0.4 to 0.7 Limerock (4 to 7”)
0.4 to 0.7 2 to 4 Loose fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM)
2 to 4 12 to 17 Medium dense to dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM)
12 to 17 30* Loose to medium dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM)
* Termination Depth of Deepest Boring
( ) Indicates Unified Soil Classification
As an exception, boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics
(Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet.
We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations at a depth range of 5.0 to 6.4 feet
below the existing grade. It should be anticipated the groundwater level will fluctuate due to
topography, seasonal climatic variations, surface water runoff patterns, construction operations,
and other interrelated factors.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 GENERAL
Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site and subsurface conditions at the property
with respect to the anticipated construction are based upon (1) our site observations, (2) the
limited field data obtained, and (3) our understanding of the project information and anticipated
construction as presented in this report. It should be noted that soil conditions will vary away
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
5
from and between boring locations and therefore, other site preparation techniques could be
warranted.
Boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a
depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We recommend that we observe the overexcavation of this
material during construction to better identify the material encountered by the boring,
determine the need for overexcavation, and better delineate the vertical and horizontal
extent of this material, if warranted. As an alternative, we can perform additional auger
borings in this area to better identify the material and delineate the vertical and horizontal
extent prior to construction.
4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS
The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall. The rainy season
in Northeast Florida is normally between June and September. Based upon our review of
U.S.G.S. data, St. Johns County Soil Survey, and regional hydrogeology, it is our opinion the
seasonal high groundwater is estimated to be approximately 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground
surface at the time of our evaluation.
Note: it is possible the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels will temporarily exceed these
estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water
drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities
exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal
high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site
during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain
positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project.
4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
Based on the results of our exploration, we consider the subsurface conditions at the site
adaptable for support of the proposed structure when constructed on a properly designed
conventional shallow foundation system. Provided the site preparation and earthwork
construction recommendations outlined in Section 4.5 of this report are performed, the following
parameters may be used for foundation design.
4.3.1 Bearing Pressure
The maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure for use in shallow foundation design should
not exceed 2,500 psf. Net bearing pressure is defined as the soil bearing pressure at the
foundation bearing level in excess of the natural overburden pressure at that level. The
foundations should be designed based on the maximum load which could be imposed by all
loading conditions.
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
6
4.3.2 Foundation Size
The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footings and continuous wall
footings are 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable soil
bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the
minimum size of the foundations.
4.3.3 Bearing Depth
The exterior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 18 inches below the finished exterior
grades and the interior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the finish
floor elevation to provide confinement to the bearing level soils. It is recommended that
stormwater be diverted away from the building exteriors to reduce the possibility of erosion
beneath the exterior footings.
4.3.4 Bearing Material
The foundations may bear in either the compacted suitable natural soils or compacted structural
fill. The bearing level soils, after compaction, should exhibit densities equivalent to at least 95
percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least one
foot below the foundation bearing level.
4.3.5 Settlement Estimates
Post-construction settlements of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors,
such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics; (2) footing size,
bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundations; and (3) site
preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor. Our settlement
estimates for the structure are based on the use of site preparation/earthwork construction
techniques as recommended in Section 4.5 of this report. Any deviation from these
recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlements of the
structure.
Due to the sandy nature of the near-surface soils, we expect the majority of settlement to occur in
an elastic manner and fairly rapidly during construction. Using the recommended maximum
bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads and the field data which we have
correlated to geotechnical strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we
estimate that total settlements of the structure could be on the order of one inch or less.
Differential settlements result from differences in applied bearing pressures and variations in the
compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Because of the general uniformity of the
subsurface conditions and the recommended site preparation and earthwork construction
techniques outlined in Section 4.5, we anticipate that differential settlements of the structure
should be within tolerable magnitudes (½ inch or less).
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
7
4.3.6 Floor Slab
The floor slab can be constructed as a slab-on-grade member using a modulus of subgrade
reaction (K) of 100 pci provided the subgrade materials are compacted as outlined in Section 4.5.
It is recommended the floor slab bearing soils be covered with an impervious membrane to
reduce moisture entry and floor dampness in accordance with the most recent version of the
Florida Building Code requirements. A 10-mil thick plastic membrane is commonly used for this
purpose. Care should be exercised not to tear the membrane during placement of reinforcing
steel and concrete.
4.4 PAVEMENTS
4.4.1 General
A rigid or flexible pavement section could be used on this project. Flexible pavement combines
the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an appropriate and cost-
effective combination of available construction materials. Concrete pavement has the advantage
of the ability to “bridge” over isolated soft areas, it requires less security lighting, and it typically
has a longer service life than asphalt pavement. Disadvantages of rigid pavement include an
initial higher cost and more difficult patching of distressed areas than occurs with flexible
pavement.
4.4.2 Asphalt (Flexible) Pavements
We have recommended a flexible pavement section with a 20-year design life for use on this
project. Because traffic loadings are commonly unavailable, we have generalized our pavement
design into two groups. The group descriptions and the recommended component thicknesses
are presented in Table 3: Summary of Pavement Component Recommendations. The structural
numbers in Table 3 are based on a structural number analysis with the stated estimated daily
traffic volume for a 20-year replacement design life.
TABLE 3
Summary of Pavement Component Recommendations
Traffic Group
Maximum
Traffic
Loading
Component Thickness (inches)
Stabilized
Subgrade
Base
Course
Surface
Course
Standard Duty
Up to 300,000
E18SAL 12 6 1.5
Heavy Duty
Up to 800,000
E18SAL 12 8 2.0
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
8
4.4.2.1 Stabilized Subgrade
We recommend that subgrade materials be compacted in place according to the requirements in
the “Site Preparation” section of this report. Further, beneath limerock base course, stabilize the
subgrade materials to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40, as specified by Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) requirements for Type B Stabilized Subgrade. The
subgrade material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum
dry density (ASTM D 1557, AASHTO T-180) value.
The stabilized subgrade can be a blend of existing soil and imported material such as limerock.
If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the
optimum mix proportions.
The primary function of stabilized subgrade beneath the base course is to provide a stable and
firm subgrade so that the limerock can be properly and uniformly placed and compacted.
Depending upon the soil type, the subgrade material may have sufficient stability to provide the
needed support without additional stabilizing material. Generally, sands with silt or clay should
have sufficient stability and may not require additional stabilizing material. Conversely,
relatively “clean” sand will not provide sufficient stability to adequately construct the limerock
base course. Universal Engineering Sciences should observe the soils exposed on the finish
grades to evaluate whether or not additional stabilization will be required beneath the base
course.
4.4.2.2 Base Course
We recommend the base course consist of locally available limerock complying with the
requirements of the most recent version of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction (SSRBC), Section 200 and Section 911. The limerock should be mined or
supplied from an FDOT approved source. Place the limerock in maximum 6 inch thick loose
lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum
dry density (ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180) and exhibit a minimum LBR of 100.
Alternatively, we believe locally available crushed concrete base of equal thickness could be
substituted for the limerock. Crushed concrete should be supplied by an FDOT approved plant
with quality control procedures. Crushed concrete should meet the requirements for Recycled
Concrete Aggregate (RCA) of the most recent FDOT SSRBC Sections 200 and 911 for recycled
concrete aggregate (RCA) and exhibit an LBR of 150.
The LBR value of material produced at a particular source shall be determined in accordance
with an approved quality control procedure.
Testing shall be performed at the following frequencies:
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
9
Perform in-place density on the base at a frequency of 1 test per 300 linear foot of
roadway or 5,000 square feet of pavement.
Perform Limerock Bearing Ratio tests at a frequency of 1 test per visual change in
material and a minimum of 1 test per 15,000 square feet of pavement.
Engineer should perform a final visual base inspection prior to placement of prime or
tack coat and paving.
4.4.2.3 Wearing Surface
For the roadways, 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 the proposed light-duty
area. The heavy duty area can consist of a single 2-inch lift of SP-12.5 or 2 layers of SP-9.5
placed in 1-inch lifts. The asphalt concrete should be placed within the allowable lift thicknesses
for fine Type SP mixes per the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction, Section 334-1.4 Thickness.
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 and -1.2% of the design Gmm. Specific requirements for
the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT,
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334.
Please note, if the Designer (or Contract Documents) limits compaction to the static mode only
or lifts are placed one-inch thick, then the average field density should be 92 percent, with an
individual test tolerance of + 3 percent, and -1.2% of the design Gmm.
After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material
thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per 5,000
square feet of placed pavement, every 250 feet of lineal roadway, or a minimum of two (2) cores
per day’s production.
4.4.3 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements
Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade
soils than a flexible asphalt pavement. For a concrete pavement subgrade, we recommend using
the existing surficial sands or recommend clean fine sand fill (SP), densified to at least 98
percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) without additional
stabilization, with the following stipulations:
1. Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 98 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum
dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least 2 feet prior to placement of concrete.
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
10
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 thickened
edges (curb or footing).
5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated typical wet season
groundwater level by at least 18 inches.
Our recommendations for slab thickness for standard duty and heavy duty concrete pavements
are based on a) subgrade soils densified to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D 1557), b) modulus of subgrade reaction (k) equal to 200 pounds per cubic
inch, c) a 20 year design life, and 3) the previously stated traffic conditions in Section 4.4.2, we
recommend using the design shown in Table 4 for standard duty concrete pavements.
TABLE 4
Standard Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement
Minimum
Pavement Thickness
Maximum Control
Joint Spacing
Recommended
Sawcut Depth
5 Inches 10 Feet x 10 Feet 1¼ Inches
Our recommended design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in Table 5 below.
TABLE 5
Heavy Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement
Minimum
Pavement Thickness
Maximum Control
Joint Spacing
Recommended
Sawcut Depth
6 Inches 12 Feet x 12 Feet 1½ Inches
We recommend using concrete with minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a
minimum 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600 pounds per square inch,
based on 3rd point loading of concrete beam test samples. Layout of the sawcut control joints
should form square panels, and the depth of sawcut joint should be at least ¼ of the concrete slab
thickness. The joints should be sawed within six hours of concrete placement or as soon as the
concrete has developed sufficient strength to support workers and equipment. We recommend
allowing Universal to review and comment on the final concrete pavement design, including
section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of construction.
For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the “Guide to Jointing on
Non-Reinforced Concrete Pavements” published by the Florida Concrete and Products
Associates, Inc., and “Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas”, published by the Portland
Cement Association.
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
11
4.4.4 Effects of Groundwater
One of the most critical factors influencing pavement performance in Northeast Florida is the
relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. Many
roadways and parking areas have been damaged as a result of deterioration of the base conditions
and/or the base/surface course bond. We recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the
bottom of the flexible pavement limerock base course be separated by at least 24 inches. We
recommend a separation of at least 18 inches below the bottom of a rigid concrete pavement or
below a flexible pavement with a crushed concrete base. If this separation cannot be established
and maintained by grading and surface drainage improvements, permanent groundwater control
measures (underdrains) will be required.
4.4.5 Curbing
We recommend that curbing around the landscaped sections adjacent to the parking areas and
driveways be constructed with full-depth curb sections. Using extruded curb sections which lie
directly on top of the final asphalt level, or eliminating the curbing entirely, can allow migration
of irrigation water from the landscape 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. Topsoil placed behind curbing in landscaped areas should
be limited to 6 inches vertical thickness within five feet of flexible pavement.
4.4.6 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 SITE PREPARATION
We recommend normal, good practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include:
stripping the site of any vegetation and topsoil, implementing temporary ground water control, as
warranted, overexcavation of organic soils, as warranted, removing any existing structures and
associated foundations, pavements, and utilities, compacting the subgrade, and placing necessary
fill or backfill to grade with engineered fill. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows:
1. Prior to construction, the location of any existing underground utility lines within the
construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate
interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It should be noted that if underground pipes
are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve as conduits for subsurface erosion
which may subsequently lead to excessive settlement of overlying structure(s).
2. We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations between depths of 5.0 to 6.4
feet below the existing grade. The seasonal high groundwater level is estimated to be
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
12
approximately 0.5 to 1.0 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our
exploration. The groundwater level should be maintained at least 1 foot below any
excavations and 2 feet below the surface of any vibratory compaction procedures.
3. Strip the proposed construction limits of any topsoils, vegetation, existing structures and
associated foundations, pavements, associated utilities, and other deleterious materials
within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building areas and within and 3 feet
beyond the perimeter of the proposed paved areas. Expect typical stripping at this site to a
depth of 12 inches more or less. Some isolated areas may require more than a foot of
stripping or undercutting to remove the root systems of large trees.
4. Boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a
depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We recommend that we observe the overexcavation of this
material during construction to better identify the material encountered by the
boring, determine the need for overexcavation, and better delineate the vertical and
horizontal extent of this material, if warranted. As an alternative, we can perform
additional auger borings in this area to better identify the material and delineate the
vertical and horizontal extent prior to construction.
5. Compact the subgrade from the surface with a vibratory roller (a 4- to 5-ton roller, static
weight and 4- to 5-foot drum diameter) operating until you obtain a minimum density of at
least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), to a depth
of 2 feet below the compacted surface. Typically the soils should exhibit a moisture content
of ±2.0 % of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557) during
compaction. A minimum of eight (8) complete coverages (in perpendicular directions)
should be made in the building construction area with the roller to improve the uniformity
and increase the density of the underlying sandy soils.
Should the bearing level soils experience pumping and soil strength loss during the
compaction operations, compaction work should be immediately terminated and (1) the
disturbed soils removed and backfilled with dry structural fill soils which are then
compacted, or (2) the excess pore pressures within the disturbed soils allowed to dissipate
before recompaction.
6. Care should be exercised to avoid damaging any nearby structures while the compaction
operation is underway. Prior to commencing compaction, occupants of adjacent structures
should be notified and the existing conditions of the structures be documented with
photographs and survey (if deemed necessary). Compaction should cease if deemed
detrimental to adjacent structures. Universal Engineering Sciences can provide vibration
monitoring services to help document and evaluate the effects of the surface compaction
operation on existing structures. In the absence of vibration monitoring it is recommended
the vibratory roller remain a minimum of 50 feet from existing structures. Within this
zone, use of a bulldozer or a vibratory roller operating in the static mode is recommended.
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
13
7. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of "clean," fine 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. Typically, the soils should exhibit moisture
contents within ± 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content during
compaction. Place fill in uniform 10- to 12-inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a
minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.
The top 12 inches of fill beneath flexible pavement or the top 24 inches of fill beneath rigid
pavement areas should be compacted to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry
density. For flexible pavement areas, stabilize this zone as necessary as recommended in
Section 4.4.2, to obtain a minimum LBR of 40.
8. Perform compliance tests within the fill/backfill at a frequency of not less than one test per
2,500 square feet per lift in the building area, or at a minimum of three tests, 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 three test locations, whichever is greater.
9. Test all footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 2 feet. We recommend you conduct
density testing in every column footing, and every 100 linear feet in wall footings.
Recompaction of the foundation excavation bearing level soils, if loosened by the
excavation process, can probably be achieved by making several coverages with a light
weight walk-behind vibratory sled or roller.
4.6 RETENTION POND CONSIDERATION
4.6.1 Fill Suitability
Based on the boring performed in the stormwater management area (LA-1), the soils described
as fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM), as encountered throughout the 25-foot boring
depth, as indicated on the attached Boring Logs and Soil Boring Profiles in Appendix A, are
considered suitable for use as structural fill. It should be understood that all soils excavated from
below the water table may be excessively wet and may require stockpiling or spreading to dry
prior to placement and compaction. It should also be noted that soils described as fine sand with
silt (SP-SM) may take longer to dry and be more difficult to work with than those described as
fine sand (SP) due to higher fines and organic contents. The suitability of these soils for use as
structural fill will be highly dependent on the contractor’s ability to adequately dry and work
these materials.
If soil conditions deviate from our exploration, please notify us immediately for observation,
evaluation and further recommendations.
UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000
UES Report No. 2031580
August 7, 2023
14
4.6.2 Seasonal High Groundwater
We measured the groundwater level in the vicinity of the proposed pond (LA-1) at a depth of 6.0
feet. We estimate the seasonal high ground water level will occur at a depth of 5.0 feet below the
existing ground surface at the time of our exploration.
4.6.3 Pond Parameters
We estimate a fillable porosity of 25 percent for the soils encountered in the upper 25 feet at
boring location LA-1. We did not encounter a confining layer in the upper 25 feet at this boring
location.
5.0 LIMITATIONS
During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this
report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is
not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems.
Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) publication, "Important Information About This
Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix B, and will help explain the nature of
geotechnical issues.
Further, we present documents in Appendix B: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your
attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report and the
General Conditions under which our services were provided.
APPENDIX A
BORING LOCATION PLAN
SOIL BORING PROFILES
BORING LOGS
KEY TO BORING LOGS
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
ASPHALT (1")
LIMEROCK (5")
Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Gray fine SAND (SP)
Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
A-1
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/20/23
7/20/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
5.8
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1452
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-1
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
-
8
5
9
13
16
16
11
6
10
19
-2
5-5-3
3-2-3
3-4-5
4-5-8
7-8-8
5-8-8
2-5-6
2-3-3
2-4-6
3-7-12
20.15.4
ASPHALT (4")
Loose dark gray fine SAND with Silt with fewConcrete fragments (SP-SM)
Loose light gray fine SAND (SP)
Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM)
B-1
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/20/23
7/20/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
6.4
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-2
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
-
6
12
26
26
29
26
12
7
9
11
-2
2-3-3
4-4-8
12-14-12
10-12-14
9-13-16
3-11-15
4-5-7
1-3-4
3-3-6
3-4-7
23.15.0
ASPHALT (1")
LIMEROCK (5")
Loose light gray fine SAND (SP)
Medium dense to dense brown to dark brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Loose to medium dense brown to gray-brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM)
B-2
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/20/23
7/20/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
5.8
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-3
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
-
6
12
10
17
25
16
13
8
10
16
-2
3-3-3
4-5-7
7-5-5
7-7-10
5-13-12
1-7-9
3-5-8
3-4-4
3-5-5
6-6-10
24.4
27.8
2.2
3.1
ASPHALT (1")
LIMEROCK (7")
Light brown fine SAND (SP)
Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown togray fine SAND (SP)
B-3
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/19/23
7/19/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
6.0
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-4
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
8
14
17
17
16
16
12
6
10
11
1-3-5
4-7-7
5-7-10
10-9-8
4-6-10
2-6-10
2-6-6
1-3-3
2-4-6
4-5-6
26.02.2
ASPHALT (1")
LIMEROCK (4")
Light gray fine SAND (SP)
Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown togray fine SAND (SP)
B-4
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/20/23
7/20/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
6.0
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-5
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
12.3
-
9
14
11
10
15
14
12
7
12
12
-8
7-6-3
4-7-7
4-5-6
5-5-5
4-6-9
3-6-8
4-6-6
2-3-4
3-5-7
4-4-8
36.38.9
ASPHALT (1")
LIMEROCK (7")
Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Medium dense dark brown fine SAND with Siltand many Organics (Pt)
Loose to medium dense brown to light brown fine
SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Medium dense gray fine SAND (SP)
B-5
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/19/23
7/19/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
5.0
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-6
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
-
6
8
11
15
19
26
10
6
10
15
2
2-2-4
2-3-5
5-5-6
5-6-9
5-7-12
5-13-13
2-4-6
3-3-3
3-4-6
5-7-8
4.4
29.9
1.4
0.9
ASPHALT (1")
LIMEROCK (6")
Loose light gray fine SAND (SP)
Medium dense to dense dark brown to brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Loose to medium dense light brown to gray fine
SAND (SP)
B-6
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/20/23
7/20/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
5.4
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-7
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
7
4
10
10
16
18
7
7
6
5-4-3
2-1-3
4-5-5
5-5-5
5-7-9
7-9-9
2-3-4
2-3-4
2-3-3
5.6
25.2
27.6
1.6
0.9
1.8
ASPHALT (3.5")
Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Loose to medium dense gray to dark brown tobrown fine SAND (SP)
LA-1
DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft):
7/19/23
7/19/23
BORING DESIGNATION:
TOWNSHIP: RANGE:
LL PI
DRILLED BY:
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SHEET:
SECTION:
1 of 1
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
6.0
7/20/23
LOCATION:
REMARKS:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA
ASH PROPERTIES
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
0
5
10
15
20
25
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
K(FT./
DAY)
ORG.CONT.
(%)
ATTERBERGLIMITS
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586
CLIENT:
-200(%)MC(%)
BORING LOG
DATE OF READING:
DEPTH(FT.)
BLOWSPER 6"
INCREMENT
N(BLOWS/
FT.)
SAMPLE
SYMBOL
W.T. DESCRIPTION
DK/MIKE
PROJECT NO.:
REPORT NO.:
PAGE:
0930.2300154.0000
A-8
PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Standard Penetration Test Borings
The penetration boring was made in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D
1586, “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. The boring was advanced by rotary
drilling techniques using a circulating bentonite fluid for borehole flushing and stability. At 2 ½
to 5 foot intervals, the drilling tools were removed from the borehole and a split-barrel sampler
inserted to the borehole bottom and driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer
falling on the average 30 inches per hammer blow. The number of blows for the final 12 inches
of penetration is termed the “penetration resistance, blow count, or N-value”. This value is an
index to several in-place geotechnical properties of the material tested, such as relative density
and Young’s Modulus.
After driving the sampler 18 inches (or less if in hard rock-like material), the sampler was
retrieved from the borehole and representative samples of the material within the split-barrel
were placed in glass jars and sealed. After completing the drilling operations, the samples for
each boring were transported to our laboratory where they were examined by our engineer in
order to verify the driller’s field classification.
Auger Borings – Manual
The auger borings were performed manually by the use of a post-hole auger and in general
accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1452, “Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger
Borings”. Representative samples of the soils brought to the ground surface by the augering
process were placed in glass jars, sealed and transported to our laboratory where they were
examined by our engineer to verify the driller’s field classification.
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
Natural Moisture Content
The water content of the sample tested was determined in general accordance with the latest
revision of ASTM D 2216. The water content is defined as the ratio of “pore” or “free” water in
a given mass of material to the mass of solid material particles.
Percent Fines Content
The percent fines or material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve of the sample tested was
determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1140. The percent fines
are the soil particles in the silt and clay size range.
Organic Loss on Ignition (Percent Organics)
The organic loss on ignition or percent organic material in the sample tested was determined in
general accordance with ASTM D 2974. The percent organics is the material, expressed as a
percentage, which is burned off in a muffle furnace at 550o Celsius.
APPENDIX B
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-
engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during
a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of
the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental
remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed
subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or
regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is
required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on
an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors
when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer,
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface
conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in
this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain
informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or
alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not
final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily
on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions
exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have
occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and
specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that
“informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the
report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
project requirements, including options selected from the report, only
from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors
that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in
a position to give constructors the information available to you, while
requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and
preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on
project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That
lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,”
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’
responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own
responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.
Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering
report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or
recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground
storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not
obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s
services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil
through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where
it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of
GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
WARRANTY
Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and
foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either
expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report.
UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations
indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any
variations which may occur between these borings.
The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become
known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site
observations and noting the characteristics of any variations.
CHANGED CONDITIONS
We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the
contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well
as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are
different from those present in this report.
No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those
anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report,
should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and
Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further,
we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to
monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions
and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report.
MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT
Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and
opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only
to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the
conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are
made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the
responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences.
CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION
This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this
project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this
project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as
outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or
added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified
or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences.
USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS
Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are
cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations.
Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test
caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that
may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences
cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or
the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting
subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations.
STRATA CHANGES
Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs
which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the
ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated
using all available information and may not be shown at the exact
depth.
OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING
Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling
and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation,
relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample
recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however,
lack of 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-made
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.
CONSTRAINTS & RESTRICTIONS
The intent of this document is to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.
ATTACHMENT I
PRE/POST-DEVELOPMENT MAP
SHEET FLOW100 LF @ 0.50%SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW66.41 LF @ 0.72%AREA = CN =Tc =K (SCS) =PRE BASIN A1.29 Ac. ±9810 Min.484HP: 9.80NG: 9.3LP: 8.82TOP INLET EL= 8.717135PRE BNDYP.O. BOX 3126, 7 WALDO STREET
ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32084
PHONE: 904.826.1334 FAX: 904.826.4547
INFO@MDGINC.COM
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTIONDATENO.
S:\PROJECTS\23000\23107 - ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH\ENG\STORM CALCS\DWG\23107 - PRE DEV MAP.DWG_PRE MAP, 10/9/2023 2:57 PM, Eliel Jarquin, MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, INC.
DATE:
JOB No.:
DSGN BY:
DWG BY:
CHK BY:
PREPARED FOR
X
23107
XX-XX-XX
ARA
LGM
LGM
ASH PROPERTIES
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
PRE DEVELOPMENT MAP NMAJOR CONTOURMINOR CONTOUREXISTING LEGENDXX.XX66PROPERTY / RIGHT OF WAY LINEROADWAY CENTERLINESPOT ELEVATIONSOIL DIVIDESOIL UNIT NUMBERTIME OF CONCENTRATIONXXMAJOR BASIN DIVIDEMINOR BASIN DIVIDESOILS DATAUNITSYMBOLSOILS TYPETYPE35LYNN HAVEN FINE SANDA/D71URBAN LAND-LEON BOULOGNE COMPLEXA/D0GRAPHIC SCALE90120601" = 60'
XXXXAREA = CN =Tc =K (SCS) =POST BASIN 11.10 Ac. ±9210 Min.484SWMF 1100yr DHW = 7.3425yr DHW = 7.21TOB = 9.90 (0.20 Ac)NWL = 5.00 (0.09 Ac)POND BOTTOM = -1.00 (0.03 Ac)POST BNDYAREA = CN =Tc =K (SCS) =POST BASIN 20.19 Ac. ±9710 Min.484P.O. BOX 3126, 7 WALDO STREET
ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32084
PHONE: 904.826.1334 FAX: 904.826.4547
INFO@MDGINC.COM
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTIONDATENO.
S:\PROJECTS\23000\23107 - ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH\ENG\STORM CALCS\DWG\23107 - POST DEV MAP.DWG_POST MAP, 12/20/2023 9:43 AM, Logan Mudd, MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, INC.
DATE:
JOB No.:
DSGN BY:
DWG BY:
CHK BY:
PREPARED FOR
2
23107
XX-XX-XX
ARA
LGM
LGM
ASH PROPERTIES
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH
POST DEVELOPMENT MAP SPOT ELEVATIONSTORM PIPEXX.XXROADWAY CENTERLINEPAVEMENT EDGEBUILDING SETBACK LINEDRAINAGE MAJOR DIVIDEDRAINAGE MINOR DIVIDENPROPOSED LEGENDPROPERTY / RIGHT OF WAY LINE0GRAPHIC SCALE90120601" = 60'