1739 GEOTECH jan 9 2012a,,--..._s
RICHARD SKINNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS
2245 St. Johns Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
Attn: Ms. Maiju Stansel
Re: Report of Geotechn ical Exploration & Engineering Evaluation
Proposed Garage Addition -Clements Residence
1739 Beach Avenue -Atlantic Beach, Florida
AGES Job No. J15240, Report No. 001
Dear Mr. Stansel:
January 9, 2012
AGES of JAX, INC. (AGES) has completed a geotechnical exploration and engineering evaluation
of the subsurface conditions beneath the proposed garage building addition construction areas of the
referenced project. Our geotechnica l ex ploration was performed in general accordance with our Proposal
No. 11 JP5620 dated December 20, 201 1. Our services were formally authorized by Ms. Maiju Stansel of
Ri chard Skinner & Associates, Architects on December 21, 2011. This report briefly describes our
understanding of the planned construction, describes the field testing performed and presents our
recommendations for foundation design and site preparation.
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
General project information has been provided by Ms. Maiju Stansel of Richard Skinner &
Associates, Architects during recent Email co rre spondence dated December 20, 2011 which contained a
Site Plan (Sheet No. AO.l) dated December 19, 2011 , prepared by th e cl ient showing the existing residential
structure features, site location , th e proposed building addition development and proposed boring locations.
Based upon the information provided, we understand that a new two story garage addition and some
ex isting residential structure renovations, most notably a retaining wa ll, are planned for the existing
residential development located at 1739 Beach Avenue in Atlantic Beach, Florida. The propose d
improvements will likely include:
*
*
A 2-story masonry block and /orwood framed garage addition with the under
roof living footprint being added approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet;
A peri meter retaining wa ll on the east side of the proposed garage addition.
The proposed addition will be used as a garage on the ground floor and a bedroom on the seco nd
floor. Detailed structural loading information was not provided, however we have estimated ma ximum
individual column loads on the order of 25 to 50 kips, maximum wa ll loads on the order of 3 to 4 kif and live
slab on grade loads of 125 pounds per sq uare foot. The proposed building finish floor and existing site
topography data indicates that the proposed structure will probably be constructed at or near existing site
grades.
AGES of JAX, Inc.
POBox 24008, Jacksonville FI 32241-4008
9556 Historic Kings Road South, Suite 201. Jacksonville, Florida 32257-2010
(904) 886-0766 . (904) 880-5190 (FAX)
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Penetration Boring
The penetration boring was made in general accordance with ASTM D 1586-67, "Penetration Test
and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". The boring was advanced to the water table by augering and, after
encounteri ng the groundwater table, further advanced by a "wash-and-chop" drilling technique using a
circulating bentonite fluid for borehole flushing and stability. At two-foot intervals within the upper 1 0 feet
and at five-foot intervals thereafter, the drilling tools were re moved from the borehole and a split-barrel
sampler in serted to the borehole bottom and driven 18 inches into the material using a 140-pound SPT
hammer falling, on the average, 30 inches per hammer blow. The number of hammer blows for the final
12 inches of penetration is termed the "p enetration resistance, blow count, or N-value". Thi s 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 or rock-like material) at each test interval,
the sampler was retrieved from the borehole and a representative sample of the material with in the split-
barrel was placed in a glass jar and sealed. After completing the drilling operations, the samples for the
borin~ were transported to our laboratory where they were examined by our engineer in order to verify the
driller s field classifications. The samples will be kept in our laboratory for a period of two months after
submittal of formal written report, unless otherwise directed by the client.
Auger BoringslDynamic Cone Penetrometer Borings
The auger borings were performed manually using a post-hole auger and/or mechanical rig
auger. The auger borings were drilled in general accordance with ASTM 0 1452-80 ("Soil Investigation
and Sampling by Auger Borings"). Representative samples of the soils brought to the ground surface
by the angering process were placed in glass jars, sealed , and transported to our laboratory where they
were examinea by a geotechnical engineer to verify the driller's field classification. At one foot depth
interva l, th e dynamic cone penetrometer was placed into the borehole and driven 2" to seat the cone.
The rod was then driven two consecutive 1.75" increments and the number of blows per increment
were recorded. These average of the two blow/counts is correlated to standard penetration
resistances.
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER RECORDS
1729 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida
AGES Job No. J15240, Report No. 001
Date Performed' 01/03/12 Performed By' D Anderson
DCP RESISTANCE • ~ BLOWS PER: Estimated
Auger •• Soil Description DCP Test SPT N-
Boring Depth DEPTH 151 2nd VALUE
Number (Feet) (Feet) 1.75" 1.75" (BlF)
0.0 -6.0 VERY LOOSE to LOOSE Brown 0.0 1 1 1
Fine SAND
1.0 1 1 1
AP1 2.0 2 1 1
3.0 3 4 3
4.0 2 3 2
5.0 3 4 3
A.B.T. GWL = Not Encountered 6.0 5 5 5
NT = Not Tested BGS = Below Ground Surface GWL = Groundwater Level J8231 dcp1.wpd
TEST BORING RECORD
JOB NO -;;J",15::.:2:...:4-=-0 __ _
BORING NO B1
Project 1729 Beach Avenue Sheet 1 ---:o'f ----''-'-:;1~~~~-
Boring Location Southwest Corner of Garage-12' West of South of Southwest Corner Boring Begun 01/03/12
Ground Elevation NA Datum NA Boring Completed 01 /03/12
Groundwater Depth 9.0' Time: Drilling Date: 01/03/12 Driller D. Anders-'o"'n""''''-.!.''-~~-
ELEV. DEPTH
(FT) lFTI
f--u
f---
f---
f----
----
----
- 5 -----
f---
f-----
----
-
-10 ---
-----------
--
--
-15 ---
----
---
----
--
--
-20 ---
--
--
--
--
----
--
--
-25 --
----
--
------
--- -
-30 -- -
--
J1 5240b1.qpw
Engineer _T,-,R-"W",-~~~~~_
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE ~OW
NO. BLOWS PER 6-IN. INTERVAL COUNT
1 2 3 4 3 7
LOOSE to VERY LOOSE Grey Fine SAND 2 2 1 2 2 3
3 2 2 2 3 4
4 3 3 4 3 7
LOOSE Grey Slightly Silty Fine SAND
5 2 1 2 3 3
VERY LOOSE Grey Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND
VERY FIRM Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND
6 13 14 11 25
7 10 17 21 38
DENSE Grey Brown Fine SAND
8 12 20 27 47
<>onn9 I ermmatea
BORING & SAMPLING, ASTM D1586/CORE DRILLING. ASTM D213
BLOW COUNT IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF A 140 LB. HAMMER
FALLING 30 IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE 1.4 IN. 1.0. SAMPLER 1 FT.
I
CORRELATION OF N-VALUE WITH RELATIVE DENSITY & CONSISTENCY
SANDS AND GRAVEL I I SILTS AND CLAYS
NO_ OF BLOWS,N' RELATIVE NO. OF BLOWS, W CONSISTENCY
DENSITY
0-2 VERY SOFT
0 -4 VERY LOOSE '·4 SOFT
5 ·10 l OOSE 5-' FIRM
11 ·20 FIRM 9 -15 STIFF
21 -30 VERY FIRM 16 -30 VERY STIFF
31 -50 DENSE 31 -50 HARD
OVER 50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY HARD
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATIDN SYSTEM)
I CATEGORY I DIMENSIONS
; 12 ;"oho<
Cobbles 3 to 12 inches
Gravel Coarse -0.75 to 3 inches in diameter
Sand Coarse -2.0 mm to 4.76 rnm diameter
Medium -0.42 mm to 2.0 mm diameter
Silt and Clay l ess than 0.074 mm (Invisible to the naked eye)
MODIFIERS
I
These modifiers provide Qurestimate of the amount of minor constituents (sand silt
or clay size particles) in the soil sample.
PERCENTAGE OF MINOR MODIFIERS
CONSTITUENT
5% to 12% Slightly Silty, Slightly Clayey, Slightly Sandy
12% to 30% Silty, Clayey, Sandy
30% to 50% Very Silty, Very Clayey, Very Sandy
These modifiers provide our estimate of the amount of other components in the soil sample.
APPROXIMATE CONTENT OF OTHER APPROXIMATE CONTENT OF
COMPONENTS (SHELL, GRAVEL, MODIFIERS ORGANIC COMPONENTS
ETC.)
0% to 5% TRACE 1% to 2%
5% to 12% FEW 2% to 4%
12% to 30% SOME 4% to 8%
30% to 50% MANY >8%
wpdac\Form\sod
I
o z '" « u
. ".
-N-
~
II
PART Of GOVT LOT 4 5fcnou 51
LEGEND:
I
I
I
I
I
I
CtM:<Z"',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-0-Penetration Test Boring Location (approximate) -+-Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Location (approximate)
REFERENCE:
Drawing Provided by Richard Skinner, and Associates. Undated.
in the field use paced and taped measurements of
existing site feature and available survey control.
Boring locations as shown on this plan are approximate.
I.ll! "~""L«.< • '""''''''''''.c.~~ ~ ... .:.!
·'.1':("r·.<~ "'''''CII~<!''''
".,!,~,.:~. 'L\"'~"' .... f'''''"~ "H!~"
""''''o"o:~ _ .... ," .. "
llf-----------'----------Jocksonville. Florida -
DRAWN : TSM
FIELD EXPLORATION PLAN
Beach
Atlantic
1729 Ave nue
Beach, Florida
DATE: 01/09/12
CHECKED: TRW JOB NO: J15240
SCALE:
1"=20'
o z ~ u
-N-~
. ---
I
, ,.
" -' 1!I(ilall MOllnd I .0.-' .. "! II II ',' ' Ii
N:mtucket A\'6
" ,
I'
II
'I'r "-
-, ,
NOR7H BEACH · I , .', " I It' I I,: I ,I , ,
I' [ , ~' I
I!' -JI I ~cbiLn ;1 . .I -,
I
\ I -,1
~I --i=--: "
1
,
I'
__ @ I
REFERENCE:
Mopquest.com
';".' ,,' 1-----1"?"' _ , Wonderwood
,"0 -I I
"
I '-'
, ,
--
"
a.
\
\
/ -:
"II
I,
t '.
" "
~
j,
"
" ,
,,' -=
~ ~:: I' I ' ,J, I
" I
r
" I
" , ", ,
,
'I
"
, /,
" , ,
-
--~ ,-ill~
\ Manhattan Beach ,1,0
o I \r.
I",'
1If---------'--------Jocksonville, Florida
SITE LOCATION MAP
1729 Beach Avenu e
Atlant ic Beach, Fl orida
DRAWN: TSM DATE: 01 /09/1 2
CHECKED : TRW JOB NO: J15240
SCALE:
NTS
ATTACHMENTS
Site Location Map
Field Exploration Plan
Key to Soil Classification
Test Boring Record
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Boring Record
Field Exploration Procedures
SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN & SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont)
may be sufficient to achieve the desired surface compaction of the very loose to loose surficial soils. This
compactive effort should help improve the overall uniformity and bearing conditions of the near-surface
soils. Using a roller meeting the requirements recommended above, any structural fill required to raise the
site to the ptanned finish grades may then be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness, and
then compacted to densities similar to those recommended above. Structural fill is defined as a non-plastic,
inorganic, granular soli containing less than 10 percent material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve (i.e.
relatively clean sand).
The upper seven(?) feet of sandy soils which were encountered at our penetration test boring
location are SUitable for use as "free draining" sand backfill and are to be used behind the retaining wall.
The backfill materials for the retaining wall should also meet the requirements of structural fill as mentioned
above and be free of large stones, construction debris and organic material.
i work construction, work upon these areas should ~~~I~~~~]~~~;~~~~ -Should the near-surface soils and/or structural fill material experience
removed and backfilled with "dry" structural fill soils,
content on to percent, which are then compacted; or (2) the excess
within the disturbed soils allowed to diSSipate before re-compacting. Furthermore) the
gr~~~rlg~:~~~J~!~:~ShOUld be checked and controlled as necessary to help insure proper drawdown or any h conditions that may be causing the "pumping" conditions during compaction or
co-r1stiCuction activity upon these soils.
Foundation Areas -After site and fill compaction is complete, the foundations may be excavated
to their planned bearing levels. The exposed bearing level soils should exhibit densities equivalent to 95
percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. For confined foundation areas, any additionally
required compaction of the bearing level soils can probably be best achieved using lightweight, vibratory
sledsl rollers, or lampersi having a lotal weighl of alleast 100 pounds. Loose lifts of backfilled soil in Ihe
founDation excavations, If reqUired, should be placed in thicknesses not exceeding six inches prior to
densification with the lightweight compaction equipment. Should "pumping" occur In the exposed bearing
level salls of the foundations, treatment of the disturbed soils should be performed as recommendea
previously. However, when pumping high waler from lemporary construction slumps to lower high
groundwater conditions in the foundation areas, the sumps should be located outside the foundation
excavations. Pumping from slumps located within Ihe foundation areas, if allowed, could loosen or disturb
Ihe foundation bearing level soils and Ihus Increase Iheir settlemenl potential.
Qualltv Control -Prior to initiating compaction operations, we recommend that representative
samples olfhe proposed structural fill maleriat and exposed in-place fine sandy soits be collected and
tested to determine their compaction and classification characteristics. The maximum dry density, optimum
moisture content, gradation, and plasticity characteristics should be determined. These tests are needed
for compaction quality control of the structural fill and existing solis, and to determine If Ihe proposed fill
materials are acceptable.
A representative number of field In-place density tests should also be performed In the compacted
existing soils and in each one foot lift of structural fill/backfill, to evaluate whether the required degree of
compaction has been obtained. At each test level, we recommend that at least one density fest be
performed for every 3,000 square feef 01 bUilding area. In-place density tests should also be performed at
representative locations In the bearing level solis of the foollngs. We Iherefore recommend Ihal alleast one
density lesl be performed for every 100 square feel of spread footing bearing area, and for every 100 lineal
feel of continuous fooling bearing surface.
SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN & SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed Residential Structure Add ition -1739 Beach Avenue
Atlantic Beach, Florida
AGES Job No. J15240, Report No. 001
Should the location of the proposed building be changed or should any condition be encountered
during construction which differs from the data documented herein, please contact us immediately so that
we may visit the site, observe the differing conditions, and evaluate these findings with regard to the
recommendations provided subsequently. Based upon the project information aVailable at this time, we
believe that the following recommendations may be used for foundation design; provided site
preparation/earthworkand foundation construction is performed in general accordance with our subsequent
recommendations.
I. FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Type -We consider conventional shallow bearing footings applicable for this project.
An alternate foundation system consisting of a monolithic concrete slab on-grade with thickened sections
beneath the load bearing walls and columns is also considered applicable and acceptable for use at this
site.
Bearing Pressure & Depth -The maximum allowable soil bearing pressure for use in shallow
foundation design should not exceed 2,000 psf. The foundations should be designed based upon the
maximum load which could be imposed by all load ing conditions. The exterior footmgs should bear at a
depth of at least 12 inches below Ihe exterior final grades and the interior footings should bear at least 12
inches below the interior fl oor slab. This minimum bearing depth should provide tne necessary confinement
for the soils at the foundation bearing levels.
Foundation Size -The minimum widths recommended for isolated sp read-type footings and
continuous wall footings are 24 and 18 inches, respective ly. Even though the maximum allowaBle soil
bearing pressure may not be achieved, these minimum width recommendations should still control the size
of the foundations.
Bearing Material -The footings should bear in either the existing surficial fine sandy soils, which
will require proper compaction, or in compacted structural fill. The bearing level soils, after compaction,
should exhibit densities equivalent to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D
1557). The footing bearing level soils should also be inspected and tested by an engmeering technician
from our office, acting under the direction and supervision of the geotechnical engineer, in order to evaluate
the density and acceptability of the footing bearing material prior to steel placement and footing
construction.
II. SITE PREPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Groundwater Control -During our geotechnical exploration, the groundwater level was
encountered at a depth of 9.0 feet below existing site grades. Therefore, encroachment upon the
groundwater levels during site work and footing construction is probably unlikely, especially in the area of
the retaining wall construction. If encountered, the groundwater should be controlled at all times at a depth
of at least two feet below the construction level. Groundwater draw-downs can probably be best achi eved
using perimeter drainage ditches which are graded: (1) to a positive gravity outfall away from the site, or
(2) to sumps where the collected groundwater and surface water runoff can be controlled by pumping.
Structure Demolition and Pavement Removal -Initial site preparation should include the
demolition of any eXisting buildings, driveway slabs, foundations and conflicting underground utilities. Any
existing foundations encountered should be completely removed, if possible, or cut off to a depth of at least
four feet below the existing ground surface. Underground utility conduits, pipes, etc, (if encountered) should
be either filled with grout or removed. All excavations reqUiring utility or foundation removal should be
backfill ed using clean structural fill placed in six-inch thick lifts and compacted to densities equivalent to 95
percent of the Modified Proctor ma ximum dry density. .
The next step of site preparation will be removal of any pavements, topsoils or surface organics
from the construction areas. The surface stripping should be performed within and to a distance of at
least five feet beyond the perimeter of the planned building construction areas and from within and to
a distance of at least three feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed new pavement areas. We
expect that average stripping depths on the order of six inches or less will be required for this site.
The perimeter areas should be graded to help direct surface water runoff away from the planned
construction areas.
Site & Fill Compaction -After completion of initial site preparation, the upper two feet of exposed
near-surface solis beneath th e building construction area should be compacted to densities equivalent to
95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). To compact the exposed soils,
we recommend using a static drum roller which has a static at-drum weight on the order of one to two to ns
and a drum diameter on the order of two to three feet. A walk behind double drum roller or plate compactor
RICHARD SKINNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS
Jacksonville, Florida
January 9,2011
Page 4
modifications that may be required to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and
implemented. Our report has been written in a guideline recommendation format and is not appropriate for
use as (or inclusion into) th e specifica tions without being reworded in a specification type format. Although
preferably this report should not be made part of the contract documents, it should be made available to
prospective contractors for information purposes.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service as the geotechnical consultant during th is phase of
your project. Should you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of any further service
to you, please feel free to contact us.
TRW/trw/J15240.wpd
Attachments
Dist ribution: Addressee (3)
RICHARD SKINNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS
Jacksonville, Florida
January 9, 2011
Page 3
The auger/dynamic cone penetrometer boring (AP1), performed on th e east side of the existing
garage, encountered very loose to loose brown fine sands to the maximum boring depth of 6 feet.
Penetration resistance values were on the order of 1 to 5 blows per foot.
The groundwater leve[ was encountered at the penetration test boring(B 1) location and recorded,
at the time of drilling, at depths of approximately 9.0 feet be[owexisting site grades. This level is significantly
[ower th an typical season average levels. The groundwater level should be expected to fluctuate due to
seasonal climatic variations, surface water runoff patterns across the site, construction activity and the
subsequent development as planned, and other interrelated factors. Since groundwater variations are
anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities, and construclion
planning should be based on the assumption that variations wil l occur.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site and subsurface conditions with respect to the
planned construction and imposed structural loading conditions, and our recommendations for foundation
design/construction and site preparation, are based upon: (1) our site observations; (2) the field test data
obtained during this geotechnical exploration of the site; and (3) our understanding of the project information
and structural loading conditions as presented in this report. The field test data has been compared with
similar soils at other sites w here structures of similar mag nitude are satisfactorily supported by shallow
foundations.
Based upon our findings and our understanding of the proposed construction w hich includes the
understanding that the proposed project site is west of the Coastal Construction Setback Line, it is our
opinion thatthe site and subsurface conditions are adaptable for shallow foundation support ofthe proposed
residential structure addition. We recommend that the initial site work consist of clearing any conflicting
vegetation from within the planned building foot print and completing any required demolition. Subsequent
to initial site preparation, the surface soils should be compacted with a static drum roller or plate tamp to
improve density and uniformity of the upper one to two feet of loose soil. The upper two feet of soil should
be compacted to densities equiva[entto 95% of the Modified Proctor Maximum Dry density (ASTM 01 557).
Subsequent to site compaction, any required structural fill may be placed in one foot lifts and compacted
to the above specified density. Shallow-bearing footings, designed with a maximum allowab[e soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 psf, may then be constructed to support the residential structure. The foundations should
bear at [east 12 inches below the exteri or finished grades in order to provide the necessary confinement
for the foundation bearin g level soil s.
Based upon mag nitudes of the anticipated fill associated with th e project, and the assumed
structural loading information, we estimate that total settlements of the new structure could be on the order
of 1-inch or less. We expect compression settlements of the subsurface soils to occur fairly rapidly during
the construction process. Following site work construction techniques in general accordance with our
subsequent recommendations, we anticipate that differential settlements of the building should be within
tolerable magnitudes.
5.0 CLOSURE
More detailed recommendations for foundation design and site work construction are provided on
the following pages, and shou ld be reviewed for specifics. We do recommend, however, that our firm be
retained to make a general review of the final plans and specifications. [f necessary, we will suggest any
RICHARD SKINNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS
Jacksonville, Florida
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
January 9, 2011
Page 2
To explore the subsurface conditions within th e planned building construction addition area, our
personnel performed one(1) 25 -foot deep penetration test boring (B1) and one(1) 6-foot auger/dynamic
cone penetrometer boring. The borings were performed on January 3, 2012. The boring locations were
established by our personnel using paced and taped measurements from the existing site features and
survey control. The boring locations, as shown on the Field Exploration Plan, should be considered
approxi mate. The ground surface elevations at the boring locations we re not provided.
The attached Test Boring and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Boring Records present the descriptions
of the subsurface soils encountered, the groundwater levels encountered and the penetration resistance
values recorded when drilling and sampling the test borings. The stratification lines and depth designations
on the boring records represent the approximate boundary between the various soils encountered, as
determined in the field by our drillers; and the transition from one strata to the next should be considered
approximate. A brief discussion of the drilling, sampling, and field testing techniques used during the
geotechnical exploration is provided in the attached Field Exploration Procedures section.
Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were returned to our laboratory.
The samples were examined by a geotechnical enginee r and were visually classified in general accordance
with ASTM D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System).
3.0 FINDINGS
AGES representatives visited the site on January 3,2012 to investigate existing site conditions. The
subject site is located at 1739 Beach Avenue and is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the
north. south and west by existing residential development. [t should be noted that the proposed residential
stru cture building addition is located west of the Coastal Construction Setback Line. The site is directly
adjacent to and encompasses the existing garage portion of the residential development. The site is
somewhat relatively level in topography in th e existing garage area but slopes upward on the east end of
the site. Surface soils consisted of brown and grey fine sands. No standing water was observed at the site
at the time of our visit.
The subsurface conditions outlined below highlight the major subsurface stratifications encountered
during this geotechnical exploration at the site. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials
encountered during thi s exploration are provided on the attached boring records. When reviewing the
boring records and subsurface profile and the subsurface conditions ou tlined below, it should be understood
that the subsurface conditions will vary across the proposed construction area and between the boring
locations.
Boring B1, performed at the southwest corn er of the existing garage, encountered an approximate
12-foot thick surficial stratum of loose to very loose grey and grey brown fine sand s and s[ightly silty fine
sands. The standard penetration resistance values within this surficial stratum ranged from 3 to 7
blows/foot. The surficial sa nds were und erlain by very firm light brown s[ightly silty fine sands to a depth
of 17 feet. The standard penetration resistance va lue within this stratu m was 25 blows/foot. This stratum
was underlain by dense grey brown fin e sands which extended to the maximum boring termination depth
of25 feet. The standard penetration resistance values within this stratum ranged from 38 to 47 blows/foot.