HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubsurface Exploration I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Proposed Wireless Cell Tower
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard
Palm City, St. Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1900074.0000
July 3, 2019
I
i
PREPARED FOR:
Expert Construction Managers, Inc..
815 South Kings Avenue
Brandon, Florida 33511
PREPARED BY:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc:
820 Brevard Avenue
Rockledge, Florida 32955
(321) 638-0808
Consultants in; Geotechnical Engineering•Environmental Sciences-Construction Materials Testing•Threshold Inspection
Offices in:Orlando•Daytona Beach-Fort Myers-Gainesville•Jacksonville-Ocala•Palm Coast•Rockledge•Sarasota
I
Miami•Panama City•Pensacola•Fort Pierce•Tampa•West Palm Beach•Atlanta,GA•Tifton,GA
LOCATIONS:
UNIVERSAL • Atlanta
� Daytona Beach
ENGINEEi�ING SCIENCES • Fort Myers
• Fort Pierce
Consultanfs in:Geotechnical'Engineering-'Environmental Sciences Gainesville
Geophysical Services-Construction Materials Testing-Threshold Ins ection Jacksonville
g p Miami
Building Inspection-Plan Review-Building Code Administration Ocala
■ Orlando(Headquarters)
• Palm Coast
July 3, 2019 Panama city
Expert Construction Managers, Inc. Pensacola
Rockledge
815 South Kings Avenue Sarasota
Brandon, Florida 33511 Tampa
West Palm Beach
Atlanta,GA
Attention: Mr. Bill Brown Tifton,GA
Reference: Subsurface Exploration
Proposed Wireless Cell Tower
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard
Palm City, St. Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1900074.0000
Dear Mr. Brown:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration at the
above referenced site in St. Lucie County, Florida. This exploration was authorized by Mr. Ryan
Aufiero with Expert Construction Managers and was conducted as outlined in Universal's
Proposal No. 0330.0519.00027. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally
accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made.
The following report presents the results of our subsurface exploration with a geotechnical
engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided
to us. We have included our estimates of the typical wet season groundwater level at the boring
location, and general recommendations concerning soil support parameters for the proposed
cell tower.
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.
Sincerely yours,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES INC.
Certificate of.Auihonzation No .5"49
__ FAU,C
• , GEN_5 .�.��`
N3 �_ o
rkald.
,k
STATE-OF
.Brad Faucett,.M.S. P.E. :o :�..�
Regional Engineer %iro, .;`ZoRIDP,••'\� \��`�"
Florida Registration No.-33123 /i�i��ss101JA` N `���
1 ="Client;:(by e-mail")
UESDOCS#1689794
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......... ... .1................... ......... .....................................................................................
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................... .......1
...............................................................
3.0 PURPOSE.....................:......................................................:..........:...........I......a.. 1.....:......................
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................:.......:1
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.............................................:.:..:.:.:::::::.:.......:.:::::..::..:.::::.::..:..:::.:.:::..:::.:....2
6.0 LIMITATIONS......................................................... . ..2
7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES...............................................................................................................3
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING................
..:.......r.:........,r...............,......:...............:..:...............3
8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES................................................................................................3
9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................4
10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................................................................................4
10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS............................................,.,, .,., ..............,._...;,,;..,.,.................4
10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL..... ._. . .. . 4
11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS...........................:.::: ...:..:.:::.::::.:.:.:.::::.::.:.:::..::.:.::::.::.:.:::.:...:..::.::.:.:::.::5
12.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....::..::::::.:....:..::.:...............
............:::::.:::::.::::::::.::::::::......
::5
12.1 ANALYSIS...................................................... 5.. ....... .., .... .. ... .._ .....
12.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................
13.0 DEWATERING............;,:.:; r.... ............. s.
14.0 EXCAVATIONS.................................................................................................................................7
15.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.............................. .7
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I: GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE........................................
..........,.....,,...,.;............ ;,...,... ..4
......
TABLE 11; FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS.....,.,.,,,... .......... ... .......6
FIGURES
BORING LOCATION PLAN...............,...,........,....,..........................................,....................,,.....,.,..............FIGURE NO. 1
I
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
APPENDICES
KEY To BORING LOGS;-- ........ APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
........ .................. ........ ............................. ........ ....... ......... .,.,.,,.APPENDIX A
EXHIBITS
GBA DOCUMENT.... .................... ....... ............. ......... .............. ............ ........ EXHIBIT 1
Wireless ! Universal 0330.1900074.0000
Proposed a ess Ce 1 Tower U e sal Project No
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration for the
proposed cell tower in Palm City, St. Lucie County, Florida. This exploration was authorized by
Mr. Ryan Aufiero with Expert Construction Managers and was conducted as outlined in
Universal's Proposal No. 0330.0519.00027. This exploration was performed in accordance with
generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is our understanding from tentative information supplied by the client that the project includes
the construction of a new cell tower at the Harbour Ridge Yacht and Country Club, east of
Harbour Ridge Boulevard in Palm City, Florida. It is our understanding that the proposed tower
will have a total height of approximately 124 feet and will consist of a monopole structure.
We understand the tower is to be supported with an 8 foot diameter pier, which we assume will
be installed at a depth between 35 and 45 feet bls. Estimates of the projected foundation
loadings (including overturning moments) have not been provided to us.
If any of the above information is incorrect or changes prior to construction, please contact
Universal immediately so that we may revise the recommendations contained in this report, as
necessary. In order to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented, Universal should be allowed to review the final design and specifications prior to
the start of construction.
3.0 PURPOSE
The purposes of this exploration were:.
• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to
potential problems that may hinder the proposed development,
• to provide our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater level at the boring
location and
• to provide estimates of the soil support parameters that will be pertinent to the drilled
pier foundation design.
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located within Section 26, Township 37 South, Range 40 East in Brevard
County, Florida. More specifically, the site is located at 12600 Harbour Ridge in Palm City,
Florida, as shown on the attached Figure No. 1. At the time of drilling, the site was relatively
level with vegetation'consisting of various sized trees and brush.
1
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Wireless Cell Tower Universal Project No.0330.1900074.0000
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services conducted by Universal during our subsurface exploration program are as follows:
• Drill one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring at the location of the proposed cell
tower to a depth of 60 feet below existing land surface (bls).
• Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory
analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.
• Measure the existing site groundwater level and provide an estimate of the typical wet
season high groundwater level:
• Conduct soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to help determine
their engineering properties.
• Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.
• Prepare a report which documents the results of our subsurface exploration and analysis
with geotechnical engineering recommendations.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in order to aid the clientlengineer in the design of the proposed
cell tower east of Harbour Ridge Boulevard in Palm City, Florida. The scope is limited to the
specific project and location described herein. Our description of the project's design
parameters represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and
foundation characteristics. In the event that any changes in the design or location of the
structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be
reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified, if required, and approved in writing by
Universal.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil
boring performed at the location indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other
information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur within
unexplored areas of the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident
until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-
evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations during
the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations. Deleterious soils were
not encountered at our boring location; however, we cannot completely preclude their presence.
Therefore, this report should not be used for estimating such items as cut and fill quantities.
Our field exploration did not find unsuitable or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence.
However, borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient
for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or
reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not
recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for
estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient
exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration
provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities.
2
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineedng.com
` Proposed Wireless Cell Tower Universal Project No.0330.1900074.0000
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
Therefore, Universal will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others
beyond the purposes)for which it is applicable or intended.
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal to attempt to
locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that
may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by
Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried
man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during
(. construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if
requested.
1 For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document
f attached within Exhibit 1 'Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report"
prepared by GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association.
f 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING
i
The SPT boring, designated B1 on the attached Figure No. 1, was performed in general
accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and
Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split-
barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the
penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. The soil samples
recovered from the split-barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified in general
accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]).
The SPT soil boring was performed using a CME 45 truck-mounted drilling rig using either
rotary mud techniques or continuous flight augers to termination depth. Universal located the
test boring by measuring from existing landmarks with a calibrated measuring wheel. No survey
control was provided on-site, and our boring location should be considered only as accurate as
implied by the methods of measurement used. The approximate boring location is shown on the
attached Figure 1.
8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES
We completed a#200 sieve particle size analysis on four (4) representative soil samples. These
samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test Method
for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve). In part, ASTM D 1140 requires a
thorough mixing the sample with water and flushing it through a No. 200 sieve until all of the
particles smaller than-the sieve size leave the sample. The percentage of the material finer than
the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textural nature of the soil sample and aids in evaluating
its engineering characteristics. The percentage of materials passing the #200 sieve is shown on
the attached boring log.
3
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
i Proposed Wireless Cell Tower Universal Project No.0330.1900074.0000
i 12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information
obtained from the SPT boring, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and stabilized
groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring
Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared
from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer.
The stratification lines shown on the boring log represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may
be more transitional than depicted.
A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring location is presented in the following
Table 1. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring log.
TABLE
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
Depth Approximate
Encountered Thickness(feet) Soil Description
(feet,bls)
Surface 5 Fine sands[SP] and fine sands with silt[SP-SM]; loose
Interlayered strata consisting of fine sands [SP], fine sands with
5 44'/2 silt[SP-SM], fine sands with clay [SP-SC], and clayey fine sands
[SC]; loose to medium dense.
49'/ 10'/ Fine sands [SP] and fine sands with silt [SP-SM] with varying'
z z quantities of broken shell; dense to very dense.
NOTE: [] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation.
+ indicates strata encountered at boring termination,total thickness undetermined.
10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
We measured the stabilized water level in the borehole on the day of drilling June 21, 2019 after
the groundwater was allowed to stabilize. The groundwater level is shown on the attached
boring log. The groundwater level depth was measured at 6 feet bls at the boring location.
Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to
seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the
boring was conducted.
10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
The typical wet season groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained
for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site conditions, in a
year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy season in St.
Lucie County, Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to estimate the wet
season water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following:
4
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Wireless Cell Tower Universal Project No.0330.1900074.0000
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
i a. Measured groundwater level
b. Drainage characteristics of existing soil types
C. Season of the year (wet/dry season)
d. Current& historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date)
e. Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.)
f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.)
g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems
h. On-site types of vegetation
i. Area topography (ground surface elevations)
The groundwater level reading was taken on June 21, 2019. According to data from the
Southeast Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in the
previous month of May for Central St. Lucie County was 3.9 inches, approximately the normal
amount for the month of May. Year-to-date rainfall for 2019 through June 21 st was
approximately 19.2 inches, roughly 3'/z inches below the normal levels for this time period.
Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high
groundwater levels at the boring location will be approximately 2 feet above the existing
measured level. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following various
intense storm events, may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season levels.
Due to the variable silt and clay content within the near surface soils within portions of this site,
we suspect that there may be occasional isolated pockets of"perched" groundwater throughout
the project area, particularly during periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched
water table levels may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels
indicated above.
11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS
The soil sample submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP], fine sands with silt
[SP-SM], fine sands with clay [SP-SC], and clayey fine sands [SC]. The percentage of soil sizes
passing the#200 sieve size are shown on the boring log at the approximate depth sampled.
12.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 ANALYSIS
In general, the soils encountered at the boring location are mostly loose fine sands [SP] and fine
sands with silt [SP-SM] to a depth of about 5 feet bls. These surficial strata are then underlain
by medium dense fine sands [SP], fine sands with silt [SP-SM], fine sands with clay [SP-SC]
and clayey fine sands [SC] to a depth of about 50 feet bls. Subsequently, this strata is underlain
by fine sands [SP] and fine sands with silt [SP-SM] with varying quantities of broken shell; to the
maximum depth of drilling, 60 feet bls. The existing groundwater level was measured at 6 feet
bis with an estimated typical wet season high groundwater level of approximately 41/2 feet below
the existing level.
5
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
i
,
Proposed Wireless Cell Tower Universal Project No:0330.1900074.0000
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
12.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations included herein are based on the project characteristics, the results of
our field exploration and our experience with projects similar to this one. The following Table II
presents soil parameters for use in design of the foundations for the proposed new tower
structure. Included in the table are the estimated soil unit weights, friction angles, cohesion and
earth pressure coefficients. We recommend that the proposed foundations be designed using
the estimated typical wet season high groundwater level and the soil parameters provided in this
table.
It is our understanding the foundation system will be designed by others. The foundation design
should incorporate loading considerations due to axial loads, lateral and torsional loads created
by wind action & other factors.
Please note that occasional difficult drilling conditions may be encountered due to sporadic
dense sand/shell strata at this project.
In the determination of overturning resistance for the proposed drilled pier foundation, we
recommend the following soil parameters:
TABLE 11
FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Typical Depth. Recommended Earth Pressure
(feet, bls) Effective Unit Soil Friction ; cohesion Coefficients._.. ._
-.._ Weight c Angle de s _ s ve
:From J. -
s To 9 1p 9 (deg) (p fl At Rest Active ; Passive
;7
. _ Ko.._ J .(Ka). ....:1'-. (Ke-
Surface 7 120/58" 30 0 0.50 0.33 3.00
7 12 58 36 0 0.41 0.26 3.85
12 27 58 31 0 0.48 j 0.32 3.12
27 47 58 30 0 0.50 0.33 3.00
58 36 0 0.41 0.26 47 60 3.85
"Use the lower value for unit weight below the groundwater table(submerged unit weight).
Allowable bearing pressures (vertical)
(Between 35 and 45 feet bls) = 2,000 pounds per square foot
During actual pier installations, we recommend following the protocols listed in the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) "Soils and Foundation Manual". Please note that the
design of all structural items is the sole responsibility of the project structural engineer. and
should incorporate the appropriate factors of safety.
6
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Wireless Cell Tower Universal Project No.0330.1900074.0000
12600 Harbour Ridge Boulevard, Port St Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
13.0 DEWATERING
Based on the water level conditions encountered, and depending upon the construction
methods used, control of the groundwater may be required at this project. The actual method(s)
of dewatering should be determined by the contractor.
Dewatering should be accomplished with the knowledge that the permeability of soils decreases
with increasing silt [M] and/or clay [C] content. Therefore, a silty fine sand [SM] is less
permeable than a fine sand [SP]. The fine sand, fine sand with silt and silty fine sand [SP, SP-
SM and SM] soil types can usually be dewatered by well pointing.
It should be noted that the typical wet season groundwater levels previously listed may be
Yp 9 P Y Y
temporarily exceeded during an given year in the future. Should impediments o surface water
p Y 9 Y9 Y p t
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. We recommend that the
contract documents provide for determining the depth to the groundwater table just prior to
construction, and for any required remedial dewatering.
14.0 EXCAVATIONS
Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As
a minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with
OSHA regulations (29 CFR Par 1926) dated October 31, 1989. Where lateral confinement will
not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA
requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the
slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining
workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
15.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Once the pier foundation design is complete, Universal should be allowed to review it to
ascertain if the subsurface information contained in this report has been properly interpreted
and implemented. In addition, testing of the pier grout, to determine flowability and compressive
strength, should be performed during actual construction.
The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction
documents. The design is an on-going process throughout construction. Because of our
familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified
to address site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a
timely and cost-effective manner.
i
7
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax(321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
i
i
I
IGURES
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 928,PAGE 2626sr- + `•
LUSTER
10.
�i
W•e;
0.USTER■ g 1132
B IN
0. _ 0'J w r — �' coLF cRr alx+ e`er w>
�O
� s!8■2O•" 4 �"{a Sri, �-_ _'� 1�- _ �! U
� I
14'At'r. xa
12
20 Fool n1oE.NoA f>SCLUSIK _ ) '; cL 3 P
INCRESS-,EGRESS AND
FT+ CURVE INFORMATION .-
'' RADIUS=85.00' - _- - �' 0 Q Y v
CENTRAL ANGLE-68.43'35' 21 68f SOUAFZFELS�•. ate. �?r E7 ___C W x G• �'
p 498_ In
�.,ARC LENGTH m 101.96' _ jgtd--�
�7.,CHORO-S 58'48'17'WCD
w - - 7 _ 3 8• I
UNIT 26 — .q, ss.9s' ti,¢; Q ONE
RESIDENCE
tfi`- _ a
I ..,PdN7=0F 1B• 1t•
POINT OF 7EJ-WINUS;-----..,� !: CURVATURE
CENTERLWE OF 20 F00T WE. _
NON-EXCLUSIVE INGRESS,EGRESS`
, AND UTILITY EASEMENT
HARBOUR RIDGE
PLAT
N0. 6 _ — g _ _"5. i
AT BOOK 25, PAGE 40 _ 10 � !
GOLF COUR �]121°
SE Z
I r1* PONT OF TERMINUS: 1 - 1 0 - _ 8
CENTERLINE OF 20 FOOT WDE -CURVE INFORMATION 1q• '■
NON-EXCLUSIVE INGRESS,EGRc55 = RADIUS= 180.�' 10 1; 1p-� c `~ - - B
AND UTILITY EASEMENT ■•'� -QF ` () i Z
CENTRAL ANGLE=48'27'S7" 0' :� �� -
PCEN '�, J 0
_ ARC LENGTH= 7'1 a-' 14�• _ 10 F BfQNNIN -
T - w• CHORD=S 4877'2B•W 8 _ 1`F.R.PAALEL Iv X
t?�--'FIRE HYDRANT 147,47' it 78. 5183p S� W fir, �� BASE(TVE/NNNER �-�, fyL W U
•8" ■g lalo0 �� - ,StOEUNE OF ID ,a•fj.,. LU
-1 T S 8T0a'S0•w 10� r {�.y .:,,,.. 1110EiLANpSCAPE �� •. '-1.:' t2 r
�7.50 5 0456'0Y W'
`�1�°• I A' -TELEPHONE PEDESTAL • 18.00'-_- p■ 1DNfR PARCEL ! 0
N 0255'70'W )p•�0 r'� S-�4• S"10 ■ 1e✓ -:2.SOp:5Q4AR£•FEET t o• ' Z
4,- „ '''_ ■ 3 �. 0.057 ACRES t ZI M
S BT04-So-W • 3 �t - 1■ !{ tea.+ ` _ L.. = 0
10.50' .rX•.''-ay7.� �••12 ,3'!3.- ■T� a ■ i 10 3_ 3 4-�h 7 1 8r'SYT `- y m
N 59'1 B'2S•11 •jam C<'�'
POINT OF TERM:NUS -,•�" r-c- 3a.. ` •ri'r'.`y,�y-C+''�. 12j��
CENTERUNE OF 15 F007 SMDE I - ice+- ..G°L i�+_..- L•+-�s t +t '� 538.58'(P) 3"-
NON-EXCLUSIVE U71UTY EASEMENT -�F, l .�:31a...',�L .c• -■'�: 2'r , �12 ti•, �' lO * ■4'■4• ,,■4
SO-E�F/4'�!�{• _'*. �a q�q 8�,,= • 1Y 2] A2•
j. -5 891339'W ;.. 1g r • ■B' 14
.'„j:v •=5 BT0450 1Y, 5 74'20'37' W 1De.D0' ■5- ® - ('�;j4i :�
< cn nn I6• is -15 FOOT MADE NON-EXCLUSIVE
® Approximate SPIT Boring Locations 'Figure based on drawing provided by the Client _
Figure
APPENDIX .A.
PROJECT NO.:O 0330.1900074.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES - -
BORING LOG
REPORT No...
` G APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Harbor Ridge Cell Tower BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: I Of 2
Port St Lucie SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST
St Lucie,Florida
CLIENT: Expert Construction Managers,Inc. G.S.ELEVATION(ft): DATE STARTED: 6121/19
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE(ft): 6.0 DATE FINISHED: 6121/19
REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 6121119 DRILLED BY:
EST.W.S.W.T.(ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
W BLOWS — -- K-- —ORG.
aPER a ~ °° W DESCRIPTION 200 Mc (INJ coNT.:.
c y INCREMENT z 3 3 a i (�) (%) HR.) 1 (%)
II �_
r. fine SAND,brown,[SP]
4-3-3 6
3-2-3 5 4.3 21,0
fine SAND with silt,dark brown,[SP-SM]
fine SAND with clay,dark brown,[SP-SC] -}.
2-5-6
clayey fine SAND,grey,[SC] - - - -
6-e-13 21 Tine SAND with silt,dark brown;[SP-SMj- - -
-I
28
fine SAND,grey,[SP] - - ., .
I yl ii �
-7 X
I
15 5-5-6
fine SAND with silt,gray,[SP-SM]
X6-5-_6 1
I
23'4-
I
25 ...5 5 7.. 12 .
i
o 30 2-z-1 3': fi-ne,SAND with silt,dark'•brown;•[SP=SM]
fine SAND-with clay,gray,[SP-SC]- -
H I i
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERINGSCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1900074.0000 -
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Harbor Ridge Cell Tower BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 2 Of 2
Port St Lucie SECTION:_ TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST
St Lucie,Florida
_ la' BLOWS j F pm J 200 MG K ORG.
c
PER6"
y < DESCRIPTION (INJ CONT.
INCREMENT 2 �' Ena
HR.) (%)
0
....
l ..
35 ;,.,., ...,..
30.2
I
I
40 ...s:104 . 14
t
clayey ftne SAND,grey,[SC]
i
x 110
16.0 52.8
i
50 22-24 32 56: ... ••fine SAND with slit and-trace broken shell,gray,[SP-SM]
. ., .
19-16-21 37
55 ;.: .. ...
CX.
fine SAND with broken shell,grey,[SP]
14-1218 30 ya
60 .-• .... ..
BORING TERMINATED AT 60'
o
.i
F
y
il .
KEY TO BORING LOGS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART*
i
Sand or Gravel[SP SW,GP GW] ........ c
ER AL
-Sand or Gravel with Silt �'� _ ;V 1
' I
or Clay SPSM,SP-SC]
12 , . .... : ........:...
ENGINEERING
;
GLNEERIN-
G
_ SCIENCES, INC.
w Silky or Clayyeyy:Sand
w or Gravel[SM;SC,GM,GC]
W - - - pp i. --_-- -- ---- --—--- — --- -_ -
C3 I'
0
ci
Z 50 .... bilciii —I
c� 40
cn San dC,orGravellHSltor;Cla 30.MLCeMCHOL OH L , J
— — -
I II
_ _-
i
Silt or-Clay with Sand oi,Gravel 10 -
[ML,CL-ML'CL.MH CH,OL;OH] 1u0
85- 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100
i
SIIl Of�C18yy LIQUID LIMIT
IML,CL;lYIL,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH] PLASTICITY CHART
I '.
GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL j
COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
WELL-GRADED �' • WELL-GRADED i' INORGANIC SILTS -. ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
SANDS ISW] GRAVELS[Gi IML] LOW PLASTICITY[01.1" I'�i• I i-:fir � �, �
i
r POORLY-GRADED ° - ° POORLY GRADED INORGANIC ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS
SANDS[SPI •. GRAVELS IGP] LOW PLASTICITY MEDIUM TO HIGH
JCL-ML] PLASTICITY 101i
POORLY-GRADED I POORLY-GRADED INORGANIC CLAYS PEAT,HUMUS,SWAMP SOILS
SANDS WITH SILT °, GRAVELS WITH SILT LOW TO MEDIUM WITH HIGH ORGA
ESP-SM] NIC
O,; IGP-GM] ® PLASTICITY ICL] CONTENTS[PT]..
POORLY-GRADED
.i.::..•;, SANDS WITH CLAY ° GRAVELS POORLY-GRADED WITH CLAY INORGANIC SILTS HIGH
_ [SP SC] IGP-GC] ® PLASTICITY[MH]
RELATIVE DENSITY
SILTY SANDS a; ° SILTY GRAVELS INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH (SAND AND GRAVEL)
ISM] b I0 (GM] (EM ® PLASTICITY[CHI
VERY LOOSE-0 to 4 Blowsltt.
—-- - LOOSE-6 to 1D BlowslR.
MEDIUM DENSE-11 to 30 Blowslft.
CLAYEY SANDS CLAYEY GRAVELS DENSE-31 to 60 BlowaHL
ISCI IGCI VERY DENSE-more than 50 Blowal@.
I _•
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487-UNIFIED SOIL
SILTY CLAYEY SANDS CONSISTENCY
[SC-SM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
1 (SILT AND CLAY)
••LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. VERY SOFT-0 to 2 Blowa/R.
SOFT-3 to 4 BlowalR.
FIRM-6 to 8 BlowslR.
NOTES: STIFF-9 to 16 Blows/ft.
8•-DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER(OCP)VALUE VERY STIFF-17 to 30 BlowslR.
R-DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION HARD-more than 30 BlowalH.
P-DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER
WE-DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.1
\ t
�\ � t
,,
.� �
�. �,
,�� 1
�,
Impoplant Infopmalion Hhout
'G� - n ■ _ - p0ii!1neenI ao n■ a
. .. . . . . . .-
disputes.
While .Sub . . following . . provided . help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA) Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly those that affect:
a client representative—interpret and apply this the sites size or shape;
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively the function of the proposed structure,as when its
as possible.In that way,clients can benefit from changed from a parking garage to an office building,or
i a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems from alight-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
that,for decades,have been a principal cause of the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or
weight of the proposed structure;
construction delays,cost overruns,claims,and the composition of the design team;or
disputes. If you have questions or want more project ownership.
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
construction project.
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Specific Purposes, Persons,and Projects for a different client;
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific for a different project;
needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a different site(that may or may not include all or a
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- portion of the original site);or
works constructor or even a different civil engineer.Because each before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
geotechnical-engineering study is unique,each geotechnical- to it;e.g.,man-made events like construction or
engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client.Those who environmental remediation,or natural events like floods,
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client droughts,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations.
can be seriously misled.No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first Note,too,that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
-not even you-should apply this report for any purpose or project except because of factors like changed subsurface conditions;new or modified
the one originally contemplated. codes,standards,or regulations;or new techniques or tools.If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an apply-by"date on the report,
Read this Report in Full ask what it should be,and,in general,if you are the least bit uncertain
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical
engineering report did not read it in its entirety.Do not rely on an engineer before applying it.A minor amount of additional testing or
executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.Read this report analysis-if any is required at all-could prevent major problems.
in full.
Most of the"Findings" Related in This Report Are
You Need to Inform Your.Geotechnical Engineer Professional Opinions
about Change Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
when designing the study behind this report and developing the Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.A few those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed.The
typical factors include: data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
• the clients goals,objectives,budget,schedule,and geotechnical engineer,who then applied professional judgment to
risk-management preferences; form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual
• the general nature of the structure involved,its size, sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from
configuration,and performance criteria; those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your
• the structure's location and orientation on the site;and geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
• other planned or existing site improvements,such as project finish,so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
retaining walls,access roads,parking lots,and whenever needed.
underground utilities.
i
I
i
This Report's Recommendations Are perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to allow enough
Confirmation-Dependent time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in a position
The recommendations included in'this report-including any options to give constructors the information available to you,while requiring
or alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
not final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and preconstruction
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction.If through observation your Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do
actually do exist,the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
no other changes have occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared engineering disciplines.That lack of understanding has nurtured
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments,delays,
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform cost overruns,claims,and disputes.To confront that risk,geotechnical
construction observation. engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled"limitations,"many of these provisions indicate
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted where geotechnical engineers responsibilities begin and end,to help
Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read these
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the respond fully and frankly.
design team,to:
• confer with other design-team members, Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
• help develop specifications, The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an
review pertinent elements of other design professionals' environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental
plans and specifications,and site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering a geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-
guidance is needed. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction failures.If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
observation. information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance.As a general rule,do not rely on an environmental report
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance prepared for a different client site,or project,or that is more than six
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift months old.
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the Infiltration and Mold
complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,none of the engineer's
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational services were designed,conducted,or intended to prevent uncontrolled
purposes only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil through
that"informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where it can
on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.Accordingly,
the report,but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
times,locations,and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration.Confront
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold
including options selected from the report,only from the design specialists on the design team.Geotechnical engineers are not building-
drawings and specifications.Remind constructors that they may envelope or mold specialists.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
AV A ASSOCIATION
Telephone:301/565-2733
e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 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 onlywith 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
i
Michael F . Plahovinsak P .E .
18301 State Route 161, Plain City, Ohio 43064
(614) 398-6250 - mike@mfpeng.com
September 21,2021
Expert Construction
Re: Proposed 124-ft Monopole
Located in Saint Lucie Co.,FL: Harbor Ridge
MFP Project#:23518-051 /TAPP Project Number:TP-20216
I understand that there may be some concern on the part of local building officials regarding the potential for failure of the
proposed communication monopole. Communication structures are designed in accordance with the Telecommunications
Industry Association TIA-222-H,"Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures".This
Structure is to be fabricated by TransAmerican Power Products
I have designed this monopole to withstand a 3-sec.gusted wind speed of 160 mph as recommended by TIA-222-H for Saint
Lucie Co.,FL. The design also conforms to the requirements of the Florida Building Code(7Th Ed.2020).
This monopole has been designed to accommodate a theoretical fall radius. The upper 48'of the pole has been designed to meet
the wind loads of the design,however,the lower portion of the pole has been designed with a minimum 10%extra capacity.
Assuming the pole has been fabricated according to my design,and well maintained,in the event of a failure due to extreme
wind and comparable appurtenance antenna load(winds in excess of the design wind load),it would yield/buckle at the 76'
elevation. The yielded section would result in a maximum 48'fall radius,but would most likely remain connected and hang from
the standing section.
The structure has been designed with all of the applicable factors as required by the code. A properly designed,constructed and
maintained pole has never collapsed;monopoles are safe structures with a long history of reliable operation.
I hope this review of the monopole design has given you a greater degree of comfort regarding the design capacity inherent in
pole structures. If you have any additional questions please call me at 614-398-6250 or email mike@mfpeng.com.
,,��11111lIlf�e
...... OI.'�.
Sincerely, ���`�`Q:•��C E NSF•.%�vi
�.. No 66723
STATE OF :�✓�
�O�•••�/ P.• This it..hs.".Deen 1.h_...si gnetl and r..•F"�j ...,
` • ` , Baled by Weh.el P. Plahovin.ak,P.E. #66723 f.`�LesO
• • ,, using a Diq ical Signai.te.
Michael F.Plahovinsak P.E.
P[Snced copies o[this document a
onsideted signed and seal¢d antl the SHF =v B:.t[Oi
oa 2U2� aothentication code mu t be ve ti[i ed on any �0:,'�'::<p
tnRantnel9SEP
Michael F. Plahovinsak, P.E.
t,�,�,
Sole Proprietor - Independent Engineer
P.E. Licensed in 48 Jurisdictions - -
EPA
O�`oP o erMF�� FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Ron DeSantis
o Environmental Protection
Jeanette Nunez
y ='' Lt. Governor
4 o Bob Martinez Center
2600 Blair Stone Road
01 Tallahassee Florida 32399-2400 Shawn Hamilton
MENTAL PR ' Interim Secretary
SELF-CERTIFICATION FOR
A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN UPLANDS SERVING
LESS THAN 10 ACRES OF TOTAL PROJECT AREA AND
LESS THAN 2 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
Owner(s)/Permittee(s): Vertex Development,LLC.
File No: 0409024001 EG
File Name: CELL TOWER& COMPOUND
Site Address: 12600 Harbour Ridge Blvd
Palm City FL - 34990 8007
County: St. Lucie
Latitude: 270 13' 51.4705"
Longitude: -800 18' 17.6939"
Total Project Area: 0.126
Total Impervious Surface Area: 0.076
Approximate Date of Commencement 01/24/2022
of Construction:
Registered Florida Professional: Marc Maier
License No.: 72513
Company: USA Engineering
Date: August 30, 2021 �-®
William Brown III certified through the Department's Enterprise Self-Service Application portal that the
project described above was designed by the above-named Florida registered professional to meet the
following requirements:
(a)The total project area involves less than 10 acres and less than 2 acres of impervious surface;
(b)Activities will not impact wetlands or other surface waters;
(c)Activities are not conducted in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters;
(d)Drainage facilities will not include pipes having diameters greater than 24 inches, or the hydraulic
equivalent, and will not use pumps in any manner;
(e)The project is not part of a larger common plan, development, or sale; and
(f)The project does not:
LCause adverse water quantity or flooding impacts to receiving water and adjacent lands;
2.Cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities;
3.Cause a violation of state water quality standards; or
4.Cause an adverse impact to the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows
established pursuant to s. 373.042 or a work of the district established pursuant to s. 373.086, F.S.
This certification was submitted before initiation of construction of the above project. The system is
designed, and will be operated and maintained in'accordance with applicable rules adopted pursuant to part
IV of chapter 373, F.S. There is a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from such system will comply
with state water quality standards.Therefore, construction, alteration, and maintenance of the stormwater
management system serving this project is authorized in accordance with s.403.814(12), F.S.
In accordance with s. 373.416(2), F.S., if ownership of the property or the stormwater management system
is sold or transferred to another party, continued operation of the system is authorized only if notice is
provided to the Department within 30 days of the sale or transfer.This notice can be submitted to:
RECEIVEL
FDEP Southeast District
3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 7210-1 OCT 04 z021
West Palm Beach, FL33406
ST. Lucie County, Permitting
This certification was submitted along with the following electronic documents: w
File Description
CD
Survey
If you have submitted this certification as a Florida Registered Professional,you may wish to sign and seal
this certification, and return a copy to the Department, in accordance with your professional practice act
requirements under Florida Statutes.
1, Marc Maier, License No. 72513, do hereby certify that the above information is true and accurate, based
upon my knowledge, information and belief. In the space below, affix signature, date, seal, company name,
address and certificate of authorization (if applicable).
Mq /� This item has been electronically Marc P.Maier,P.E.
signed and sealed by Marc P.
`� t�E N f'• ���� Maier,P.E.,FL License#72513 USA Engineering,Inc.
' using a Digital Signature. Florida COA#31705
No 72513
_* •; *= Printed Copies of this document are 2818 Cypress Ridge Blvd. Suite 110
* not considered signed and sealed
and the signature must be verified Wesley Chapel, FL 33544
JAT F .on any elect oecco Ies..Wo 'wst� c1;6r on may 6e su�mttted to the Department, either electronically (as an attachment in
Mier secure% , digital �oxrg&it SED_Permitting a dep.state.fl.us, or as a hardcopy, at the
p� �i�`i i�t below: A, U
Digitally signed by Marc P Maier
Marc .P M a i e,r`o1 g0,•cn=lMarcc P Maierr,,o'GOFF COMMUNNIICATIONS,c US 01
li Date.,2021.08301437D2-04'00'
FDEP Southeast District
3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 7210-1
West Palm Beach, FL33406
Michael F. Plahovinsak, P .E .
18301 State Route 161, Plain City, Ohio 43064
(614) 398-6250 - mike@mfpeng.com
September 27,2021
Expert Construction RECEIVED
OCT 0 4 2021
Re: Proposed 124-ft Monopole ST. Lucie County, Permitting
Located in Saint Lucie Co.,FL: Harbor Ridge
MFP Project#:23518-051/TAPP Project Number:TP-20216
I understand that there may be some concern on the part of local building officials regarding the potential for failure of the
proposed communication monopole. Communication structures are designed in accordance with the Telecommunications
Industry Association TIA-222-H,"Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures".This
Structure is to be fabricated by TransAmerican Power Products
I have designed this monopole to withstand a 3-sec.gusted wind speed of 160 mph as recommended by TIA-222-H for Saint
Lucie Co.,FL. The design also conforms to the requirements of the Florida Building Code(7Th Ed.2020).
This monopole has been designed to accommodate a theoretical fall radius. The upper 48'of the pole has been designed to meet
the wind loads of the design,however,the lower portion of the pole has been designed with a minimum 10%extra capacity.
Assuming the pole has been fabricated according to my design,and well maintained,in the event of a failure due to extreme
wind and comparable appurtenance antenna load(winds in excess of the design wind load),it would yield/buckle at the 76'
elevation. The yielded section would result in a maximum 48'fall radius,but would most likely remain connected and hang from
the standing section.
The structure has been designed with all of the applicable factors as required by the code. A properly designed,constructed and
maintained pole has never collapsed;monopoles are safe structures with a long history of reliable operation.
I hope this review of the monopole design has given you a greater degree of comfort regarding the design capacity inherent in
pole structures. If you have any additional questions please call me at 614-398-6250 or email mike@mfpeng.com.
s®
No 66723 •:'�
Sincerely,
. STATE OF •:W
r® .� �
N e
Michael F.Plahovinsak,P.E. SE
Ad®3 311:1
Michael F. Plahovinsak, P.E.
Sole Proprietor — Independent Engineer << ��
P.E. Licensed in 48 Jurisdictions
,J
Page I of 2 Job Number: 235 1 8-05 1
TAP P
2427 Kelly Lane Eng. MFP Customer Ref: TP-202 I G
Houston, Texas 77066 Date: 9/21/2021
281-444-8277 Structure: 1 24-FT MONOPOLE
QUALITY STEEL POLES.DELIVERED. Site: HARBOR RIDGE
Location: SAINT LUCIE CO., FL/27-13-13", -80e 18'23"
Owner: EXPERT CONSTRUCTION
Revision No.: Revision Date:
DESIGN
1 24'-0" Budding Code: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE(7th Ed. 2020)
Design Standard: TIA-222-H
Wind Speed Load Cases: A5CE-7-1 G WIND SPEED
Load Case#I: I GO MPH Design Wind Speed
Load Case#2: GO MPH Service Wind Speed
ANTENNA CONCEALMENT carboys Exposure Cat. Topography Cat. I Crest Height
CYLINDERS 11 C I
EQUIPMENT LIST
Elev. Description
118 (3)INTERNAL ANTENNAS
1 18 48-IN DIA X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
IOG (3)INTERNAL ANTENNAS
I OG 48-IN DIA X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
94 (3) INTERNAL ANTENNAS
94 48-IN DIA X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
82 (3) INTERNAL ANTENNAS
82 48-IN DIA X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
7G'-O" ANTENNA FEED LINES ROUTED ON THE INSIDE OF THE POLE
48.0" ACROSS FLATS FOLIDE51GNED FOR A MAX 48-FT FALL RADIUS
STRUCTURE PROPERTIES
Cross-Section: 18-51ded Taper: 0.1 529G in/ft
Shaft Steel:ASTM A572 GR G5 I Baseplate Steel: ASTM A572 GR 55
Anchor Rods: 2.25 in. AG 15 GR. 75 X 7-0"
Sect. Length(ft) Thickness(in) Splice(ft) Top Dia. (m) Bot Dia. (in)
5/1 G"THK.x 42'LONG 1 42.00 0.3125 7.50 48.00 54.42
(E5T. WT. = 7.215 KIPS 2 41.50 0.3125 0.00 52.G5 59.00
SPLICE LENGTH =
�� ��:• �GENS *. Z
• �V: NO 66723 7 S
r
5/1 G"THK.x 41'-G"LONG :�
(EST.WT. = 9.09 1 KIPS o STATE OF 4 s
�.•e
/N fill
f{tyP 21 2021
BASEPLATE: 2"THK X 72"
ROUND W/(I G)ANCHOR RODS —p F..—PLA - np Eg, 66723
18301 S.R. 161, Plain City, OH 43064
ON A GG"B.C. MIN. 0-0" 614-398-6250 /mike@mfpeng-
EMBEDMENT INTO CONCRETE
0'-0" BASE REACTIONS FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
Moment: 2297 ft-kip
59.0"ACROSS FLATS
Shear: 3G kip
Axial: 33 kip
,r •
Page 2 of 2 Job Number: 235 18-05
2427 Kelly Lane Eng. MFP Customer Ref: TP-202 I G
TAP_ Houston, Texas 77066 Date: 9/21/2021
281-444-8277 Structure: 1 24-FT MONOPOLE
QUALITY STEEL POLES.DELIVERED. Site: HARBOR RIDGE
Location: SAINT LUCIE CO., FL/27e 1311311, -80o 18123"
Owner: EXPERT CONSTRUCTION
ReA51on No.: RCV151on Date:
FOUNDATION NOTES:
POLE SHAFT 1. ALL FOUNDATION CONCRETE SHALL USE TYPE II CEMENT AND ATTAIN A
7-0•LONG ANCHOR MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4500 PSI AT 28 DAYS. CONCRETE
i SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM WATER/CEMENT RATIO OF 0.45. IN AREAS OF
ROD IO'-I 2 O.I PREGTION W/
3•GAP HEAVY HEX LOCK NUT AND POTENTIAL FREEZING,CONCRETE SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED G%(:t 1.5%). ALL
(GROUT NOT REQU.) LEVEIJNG NUT CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 3 18,'THE
i BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE",LATEST EDITION.
6'ABOVE GRADE
2.ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO A5TM AG 15 VERTICAL BARS
2'CHAR SHALL BE GRADE GO,AND TIES OR STIRRUPS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF GRADE
V(2)
HED GRADE 40. THE PLACEMENT OF ALL REINFORCEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO ACI 315,
"MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAILING REINFORCED CONCRETE
5TRUCTURE5", LATEST EDITION.
D7.REINF
TIE5 WITHIN THE TOP 3. CAISSON FOUNDATION INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI
5.OFCAI55ON 33G,"STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRILLED PIERS",
LATEST EDITION.
m I HOR TIES
SPACED Qa 6'CyC
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE MEANS AND METHODS TO SUPPORT
THE EXCAVATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL READ THE
I GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SHALL CONSULT THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS
z NECESSARY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
4 5. FOUNDATION DE51GN 15 BASED ON GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY:
io ENGINEER: UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
REPORT NO.: 0330.1 900074.0000(DATED 7/3/1 9)
G. ESTIMATED CONCRETE VOLUME=3G CUBIC YARDS.
441 7.THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO RESIST THE FOLLOWING FACTORED
I LOADS:
MOMENT: 2297 FT'KIP5
SHEAR: 3G KIPS
o AXIAL: 33 KIPS
z
8. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INDICATES GROUNDWATER MAY BE ENCOUNTERED AT
u 3•CLEAR(Nn 4'-0"BELOW GRADE.
z
in
_ i
N
I
���llllll�s®� -
�®® os�
a ;PL.N es
s` Q�:••..........
CL05E TIE5 WITH eer.`Z ' v •.� �j�
MIN.24•LAP LOWER TIESQa 12.0/C •oi`\v• No 66723
� • r
• u
(2G)01 O VERTICAL • �L
REINP BARS Z.9% STATE OF
•
i EQUALLY5PACED
� r �
9 CLEAR
� t7� Illliltt,`
SEP 21 1021
7-G-0 DRILLED 5HAFT �14ICHAEL F. PLMOVINSM, P.E. #66723
Sole PmP[le -Imiepend Engineer
18301 S.R. 161' Plain City, ON 43064
614-398-6250 /mikeQmfpeng.com
CAISSON FOUNDATION
WrTOSCAM
GENERAL NOTES`
1.ALL STEEL SMALL MEET THE RFAH1BTHE S tE1ERi5 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS O1CI17 FOR IDA BUILDING CODE(7th Ed.2020) g n
SRBICIRIIL SIM!ASTM Alb•UNLESS OTHERWISE NOHm ON THE SIRUCNRAL PLANS OR
BEM.
n
2.ALL ROUND SEEM PPE SMALL MEET 1 E REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM ASl TYPE E OR S GRAEUS:ASCE-7-I G WIND SPEED e I
B(3�YIELD 10�O POWKOR ASIM A501 (]B 161 YIELD POW WIERW)OR ASTM IPH Design Wind Speed 1 o �
MPH Service Wind Speed g n �I
!.ALL POLYGON FORUM STEEL SHAFTS
SHALL IEEE THE fEpUi01EM5 ASHY AS72 lJ .'J
63(65 Im YIELD PONE WTEANL). .J OD
4.ALL WELDM CONNCTIO S SMALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE AIEPoOW
Exposure Cat. Topography Cat. Crest Heightc N
WELDING
SOCIETY S DIJ CODE ALL WELD ELECTRODES OR WINE SHALL AT A MIM UM C I M4 F CONFORM TO E70 ELECTRODES(70 10 YIELD). Q d q LX
HE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF TIA-222-1-1 $
6 ALL STEEL SHAPES AND PLATES SMALL BE NOT-DIPPED GALVAI!®ACCORDING TO ASTM V
AI2A ALL STEEL NETS AND HDL75 AND ASSOCIATED H ARMAE S 4LL E HOFDPPED
ANxxRDNo ID Am A153. 5TRUMIRE PROPERTIE5 (0� �' n
B.THE MONOPOLE STRUCTURE SMALL BE FABRICATED BY TRANSAMENOW POWER PRODUCE& SIDED Taper: 0.00000 Ira � 04
7.SPECIAL INSPECTION SMALL BE PERFORMED ACCORDING THE BC. 572 GP G5 Flange Steel:ASTM A572 GR 55 I( 00
1.0 A5TM A325 II� .,
ERECTION NOTES: Thickness(in) Splice(Ft) Top Do.(in) Bob Dn.(in)
1.ALL ANTENNA COAXIAL CABLES SHALL BE RUN INSIDE THE MONOPOLE SHAFT.COAX 10 THE 1 0.25 1 0.00 1 1 G.00 I G.00
CDMCEAUIENT CYUMDM SMALL HE STRAPPED ER
SPINE AM THEM RDUTED THROUGH THE COX EOOI FLUSH�m INTO 7 OUTSIDEK�E OFFTTHHE
MONOPOLE SHAFT OR DOM BE CYLINDER SPINE FOR 7HE UPPER CYLINDER SECTIONS EQUIPMEW U5T N
2 THE CONTRACTOR SMALL NSOAIL THE ANTENNA AND MOUNT AS REQUIRED E THE OWNER, n 2
i ALL FLANGE BOLT Nurs sHI1LL E TIGHTENED ACCORDING TO THE TIINNI OF THE NUf
AL ANTENNAS —d
ULEMOD AS DEFINED INASC MANUAL OF STEEL COMMUGFIGH-AND SHALL RECEIVE SPECIAL X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
6PFLSICI.
4.ALL GALViV1®SURFACES THAT ARE DAMAGED BY ABRNSIOLS•CUM DRI LNG OR FIELD �ANTENNAS
ED WELD DURING SHIPPING OR ERECTION SMALL TOUCHED LIP WITH TWO COATS OF A COLD X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
CALYNONO COMPOUND MEETING THE REQUINEMENTS OF ASTM A7110. AL ANTENNAS
RADOME MOUNINfi X 12-FT TALL ANTENNA CONCEALMENT
1.RADOYE M0UNN0 BOLTS SHALL E go GRADE 318 SUNLESS BOLTS W/OVENS® PL ANTENNAE
WASHERS. BOLTS SAL E INSTALLED NID AVK NDIb7WAL PRODUCTS A%_GIB-]12 X 1 2-FT TALL ANTENNA CONGEALMENT
1HREADm NSERIS TO SECURE THE BOLTS
I ROUTED ON THE INSIDE OF THE POLE
2.HOLES N RADO ME FOR MOUNTING SHALL E OVFNSUD TO 1/2-0 HOLES A MAX 48•17 FALL RADIUS
4.VERTICAL SEAM OF RADOE SHALL BE BOOM AND WALLED ACCORDED TO THE RADOME
NANIIFACNDEL
Mr-V
VORTEX SHEDDING:
7NS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH ALL OF THE APPLICABLE FACTORS AS REQUIRED BY
CODE THIs SRUL'IURE HAS NOT BEEN DESOND TO MRIOATE THE EFFECTS OF voRIFNI
OR�EX�Y AS A flESMT OF HARMONIC
LOW WIND SPEED.
N THE UNLKELY EVENT THIS STRUCTURE SHOWS SMPMMS OF VORTEX SEDDN4 WE
RECOMMEND THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL CASE FEIDLFFS•OR CAN TO THE INTERIOR
OF 7HE TE POLE .TE EIDER DF THE VORTEX SHEDDING S TYPICALLY DAMPENED BYM
ADDNG OR IT a DAFT
TE EQUIPMENT LEVELS THE FULL HEIGHT OF RESPINE WALL N
POLE 00
I
per r
HOLE FRAME
IV
WALL a S'DEEPMP.
7•� O
C W Z
ND HOLE DETAIL
'AS72&1 B5(BS ISQ
Ln o
O
p� LO
A m o
z ,-,D• p (CAI C4 rU
Z L• N a
1• E O
1• {Y d d
0-1
GUSSET �Ielo,s1
♦ \. O��
'o`♦�Q�:��G E N S*'- rys�
NO 66723
Additional Notes:
.
s9: STATE OF
sS-1
WxTOwer Job 124-ft Monopole-MFP#23518-051 r1 Page1 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216 Mike
FAX.-mike@mbeng.com
Tower Input Data
The tower is a monopole.
This tower is designed using the TIA-222-H standard.
The following design criteria apply:
Tower base elevation above sea level: 12.00 ft.
Basic wind speed of 160 mph.
Risk Category 11.
Exposure Category C.
Simplified Topographic Factor Procedure for wind speed-up calculations is used.
Topographic Category: 1.
Crest Height:0.00 ft.
Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 60 mph.
A non-linear(P-delta)analysis was used.
Pressures are calculated at each section.
Stress ratio used in pole design is 1.
Local bending stresses due to climbing loads,feed line supports,and appurtenance mounts are not considered.
Tapered Pole Section Geometry
Section Elevation Section Splice Number Top Bottom Wall Bend Pole Grade
Length Length of Diameter Diameter Thickness Radius
ft ft ft Sides in in in in
Ll 124.00-112.00 12.00 0.00 18 16.0000 16.0000 0.2500 1.0000 A572-65
(65 ksi)
L2 112.00-100.00 12.00 0.00 18 16.0000 16.0000 0.2500 1.0000 A572-65
(65 ksi)
L3 100.00-88.00 12.00 0.00 18 16.0000 16.0000 0.2500 1.0000 A572-65
(65 ksi)
L4 88.00-76.50 11.50 0.00 18 16.0000 16.0000 0.2500 1.0000 A572-65
(65 ksi)
L5 76.50-76.00 0.50 0.00 18 16.0000 48.0000 0.2500 1.0000 A572-65
(65 ksi)
L6 76.00-34.00 42.00 7.50 18 48.0000 54.4243 0.3125 1.2500 A572-65
(65 ksi)
L7 34.00-0.00 41.50 18 52.6521 59.0000 0.3125 1.2500 A572-65
(65 ksi)
Tapered Pole Properties
Section Tip Dia. Area I r C I/C J It/Q w w/t
in in2 in° in in in3 in° in1 in
L1 16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
L2 16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
L3 16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
L4 16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
- tt1 b xTower Jo 124-ft Monopole-MFP#23518-051 r1 Page2 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216 Mike
FAX.•mike@mfpeng.com
Section Tip Dia. Area I r C I/C J IdQ w w/t
in in2 in° in in in3 in° inz in
L5 16.2083 12.4976 391.6752 5.5912 8.1280 48.1884 783.8657 6.2500 2.3760 9.504
48.7019 37.8896 10914.5167 16.9513 24.3840 447.6098 21843.3950 18.9484 8.0080 32.032
L6 48.6923 47.3000 13589.6434 16.9291 24.3840 557.3181 27197.1684 23.6545 7.8980 25.274
55.2157 53.6722 19855.0666 19.2097 27.6476 718.1488 39736.2590 26.8412 9.0287 28.892
L7 54.5811 51.9144 17967.4539 18.5806 26.7473 671.7487 35958.5499 25.9621 8.7168 27.894
59.8620 58.2107 25329.7686 20.8341 29.9720 845.1144 50692.8669 29.1109 9.8340 31.469
Tower Gusset Gusset Gusset Grade Adjust.Factor Adjust. Weight Mull. Double Angle Double Angle Double Angle
Elevation Area Thickness Af Factor Stitch Bolt Stitch Bolt Stitch Bolt
(per face) A, Spacing Spacing Spacing
Diagonals Horizontals Redundants
ft ft, in in in in
Ll 1 1 1
124.00-112.00
L2 1 1 1
112.00-100.00
L3 1 1 1
100.00-88.00
L4 88.00-76.50 1 I 1
L5 76.50-76.00 1 1 1
L6 76.00-34.00 1 1 1
L7 34.00-0.00 1 1 I
Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances - Entered As Area
Description Face Allow Exclude Component Placement Total CAAA Weight
or Shield From Type Number
Leg Torque ft ft'/ft Ar
Calculation
1 5/8" C No Yes Inside Pole 118.00-0.00 18 No Ice 0.00 0.92
1 5/8" C No Yes Inside Pole 106.00-0.00 18 No Ice 0.00 0.92
1 5/8" C No Yes Inside Pole 94.00-0.00 18 No Ice 0.00 0.92
1 5/8" C No Yes Inside Pole 82.00-0.00 18 No Ice 0.00 0.92
Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances Section Areas
Tower Tower Face AR AF CAAA CAAA Weight
Section Elevation In Face Out Face
rt ft, rt2 ft, rt2 x
Ll 124.00-112.00 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10
L2 112.00-100.00 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.30
L3 100.00-88.00 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.50
L4 88.00-76.50 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.66
L5 76.50-76.00 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
Job Page
t=Tower 124-ft Monopole- MFP#23518-051 r1 3 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216 Mike
FAX.-mike@,mfpengcom
Tower Tower Face AR AF CAAA CAAA Weight
Section Elevation In Face Out Face
ft ft, It, ft, ft, K
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03
L6 76.00-34.00 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.77
L7 34.00-0.00 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00
C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.24
Discrete Tower Loads
Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement CAAA CAAA Weight
or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side
Leg Lateral
Vert
ft o ft ft, ft, K
f
rt
Radome Cylinder(48"0 x C None 0.0000 118.00 No Ice 24.53 24.53 0.90
12')
Radome Cylinder(48"0 x C None 0.0000 106.00 No Ice 24.53 24.53 0.90
12')
Radome Cylinder(48"0 x C None 0.0000 94.00 No Ice 24.53 24.53 0.90
12')
Radome Cylinder(48"0 x C None 0.0000 82.00 No Ice 24.53 24.53 0.90
IT)
Load Combinations
Comb. Description
No.
1 Dead Only
2 1.2 Dead+1.0 Wind 0 deg-No Ice
3 0.9 Dead+1.0 Wind 0 deg-No Ice
4 1.2 Dead+1.0 Wind 90 deg-No Ice
5 0.9 Dead+1.0 Wind 90 deg-No Ice
6 1.2 Dead+1.0 Wind 180 deg-No Ice
7 0.9 Dead+1.0 Wind 180 deg-No Ice
8 Dead+Wind 0 deg-Service
9 Dead+Wind 90 deg-Service
10 Dead+Wind 180 deg-Service
Maximum Member Forces
Section Elevation Component Condition Gov. Axial Major Axis Minor Axis
No. ft Type Load Moment Moment
Comb. K kip ft kip-ft
Ll 124-112 Pole Max Tension 2 0.00 0.00 -0.00
Max.Compression 4 -1.67 -14.69 0.00
i
-- Job Page
MxT owe 124-ft Monopole-MFP#23518-051 r1 4 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216
FAX.-mike m en .com Mike
Section Elevation Component Condition Gov. Axial Major Axis Minor Axis
No. ft Type Load Moment Moment
Comb. K kip f kip Jt
Max.Mx 4 -1.67 -14.69 0.00
Max.My 2 -1.67 0.00 14.69
Max.Vy 4 2.45 -14.69 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -2.45 0.00 14.69
L2 112-100 Pole Max Tension 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max.Compression 2 -3.61 0.00 58.44
Max.Mx 4 -3.61 -58.44 0.00
Max.My 2 -3.61 0.00 58.44
Max.Vy 4 4.84 -58.44 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -4.84 0.00 58.44
L3 100-88 Pole Max Tension 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max.Compression 4 -5.87 -130.26 0.00
Max.Mx 4 -5.87 -130.26 0.00
Max.My 2 -5.87 0.00 130.26
Max.Vy 4 7.12 -130.26 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -7.12 0.00 130.26
L4 88-76.5 Pole Max Tension 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max.Compression 2 -8.47 0.00 223.54
Max.Mx 4 -8.47 -223.54 0.00
Max.My 2 -8.47 0.00 223.54
Max.Vy 4 9.15 -223.54 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -9.15 0.00 223.54
L5 76.5-76 Pole Max Tension 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max.Compression 4 -8.57 -228.12 0.00
Max.Mx 4 -8.57 -228.12 0.00
Max.My 2 -8.57 0.00 228.12
Max.Vy 4 9.21 -228.12 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -9.21 0.00 228.12
L6 76-34 Pole Max Tension 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max.Compression 2 -18.31 0.00 670.24
Max.Mx 4 -18.31 -670.24 0.00
Max.My 2 -18.31 0.00 670.24
Max.Vy 4 16.41 -670.24 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -16.41 0.00 670.24
L7 34-0 Pole Max Tension 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max.Compression 4 -32.70 -1516.29 0.00
Max.Mx 4 -32.70 -1516.29 0.00
Max.My 2 -32.70 0.00 1516.29
Max.Vy 4 24.08 -1516.29 0.00
Max.Vx 2 -24.08 0.00 1516.29
Maximum Tower Deflections - Service Wind
Section Elevation Horz. Gov. Tilt Twist
No. Deflection Load
fit in Comb. o °
Ll 124-112 4.367 8 0.4226 0.0000
L2 112-100 3.307 8 0.4181 0.0000
L3 100-88 2.292 8 0.3816 0.0000
L4 88-76.5 1.442 8 0.2820 0.0000
L5 76.5-76 0.962 8 0.0998 0.0000
L6 76-34 0.952 8 0.0995 0.0000
L7 41.5-0 0.335 8 0.0672 0.0000
i
WxT'ower P
Job Page
124-ft Monopole-MFP#23518-051 r1 5 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216
FAX.-mike@mfpeng.com Mike
Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind
Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of
Load Curvature
ft Comb. in o oft
118.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x 12') 8 3.835 0.4232 0.0000 116295
106.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x 12) 8 2.788 0.4032 0.0000 19198
94.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x 12') 8 1.835 0.3514 0.0000 6821
82.00 Radome Cylinder(48"O x 12') 8 1.138 0.1641 0.0000 3659
Maximum Tower Deflections - Design Wind
Section Elevation Horz. Gov. Tilt Twist
No. Deflection Load
ft in Comb. o °
L1 124-112 34.850 4 3.3764 0.0000
L2 112-100 26.388 4 3.3402 0.0000
L3 100-88 18.284 4 3.0486 0.0000
L4 88-76.5 11.494 4 2.2521 0.0000
L5 76.5-76 7.668 4 0.7959 0.0000
L6 76-34 7.585 4 0.7929 0.0000
L7 41.5-0 2.672 4 0.5353 0.0000
Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Design Wind
Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of
Load Curvature
ft Comb. in oo ft
118.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x 12') 4 30.604 3.3814 0.0000 14641
106.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x IT) 4 22.246 3.2209 0.0000 2415
94.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x 12') 4 14.636 2.8065 0.0000 857
82.00 Radome Cylinder(48"0 x 12') 4 9.069 1.3096 0.0000 458
Compression Checks
Pole Design Data
Section Elevation Size L L. Kl/r A P. rbP Ratio
No. P.
ft ft ft in2 K K V.
Ll 124-112(1) TP16xl6x0.25 12.00 0.00 0.0 12.4976 -1.67 731.11 0.002
L2 112-100(2) TP16x16x0.25 12.00 0.00 0.0 12.4976 -3.61 731.11 0.005
L3 100-88(3) TP16xl6x0.25 12.00 0.00 0.0 12.4976 -5.87 731.11 0.008
L4 88-76.5(4) TP16xl6x0.25 11.50 0.00 0.0 12.4976 -8.47 731.11 0.012
L5 76.5-76(5) TP48x16x0.25 0.50 0.00 0.0 12.4976 -8.53 731.11 0.012
L6 76-34(6) TP54.4243x48x0.3125 42.00 0.00 0.0 52.5343 -18.31 3073.26 0.006
L7 34-0(7) TP59x52.6521x0.3125 41.50 0.00 0.0 58.2107 -32.70 3319.04 0.010
-
tnxTower Job 124-ft Monopole-MFP#23518-051 r1 Page 6 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216 Mike
FAX.-mike@mfpeng.com
Section Elevation Size L L Kl/r A P. �P Ratio
No. P.
ft ft ft tn' K K �P
Pole Bending Design Data
Section Elevation Size M WM Ratio Mom. WY Ratio
No. M- .,
ft kip-ft kip-ft WM kip-ft kip-ft W,
LI 124-112(I) TP16x16x0.25 14.69 298.35 0.049 0.00 298.35 0.000
L2 112-100(2) TP16xl6x0.25 58.44 298.35 0.196 0.00 298.35 0.000
L3 100-88(3) TP16x16x0.25 130.26 298.35 0.437 0.00 298.35 0.000
L4 88-76.5(4) TP16x16x0.25 223.54 298.35 0.749 0.00 298.35 0.000
L5 76.5-76(5) TP48x16x0.25 223.54 298.35 0.749 0.00 298.35 0.000
L6 76-34(6) TP54.4243x48x0.3125 670.24 3464.30 0.193 0.00 3464.30 0.000
L7 34-0(7) TP59x52.6521 x0.3125 1516.29 4015.54 0.378 0.00 4015.54 0.000
Pole Shear Design Data
Section Elevation Size Actual rpV Ratio Actual 0T Ratio
No. V. V. T. T.
ft K K �y kip-ft kip ft 0.
LI 124-112(1) TP16x16x0.25 2.45 219.33 0.011 0.00 302.53 0.000
L2 112-100(2) TP16x16x0.25 4.84 219.33 0.022 0.00 302.53 0.000
L3 100-88(3) TP16x16x0.25 7.12 219.33 0.032 0.00 302.53 0.000
L4 88-76.5(4) TP16xl6x0.25 9.15 219.33 0.042 0.00 302.53 0.000
L5 76.5-76(5) TP48xl6x0.25 9.21 664.96 0.014 0.00 302.53 0.000
L6 76-34(6) TP54.4243x48x0.3125 16.41 921.98 0.018 0.00 4276.48 0.000
L7 34-0(7) TP59x52.652lx0.3125 24.08 1021.60 0.024 0.00 5250.56 0.000
Pole Interaction Design Data
Section Elevation Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Comb. Allow. Criteria
No. P. M MW V. T. Stress Stress
ft �P WM W,,,, �y ¢T Ratio Ratio
LI 124-112(1) 0.002 0.049 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.052 1.000 4 8 2 d�
L2 112-100(2) 0.005 0.196 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.201 1.000 4 8 2 yof
L3 100-88(3) 0.008 0.437 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.446 1.000 4 8 2
L4 88-76.5(4) 0.012 0.749 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.763 1.000 4 8 2
L5 76.5-76(5) 0.012 0.749 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.761 I.000 4 8 2
L6 76-34(6) 0.006 0.193 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.200 1.000 4 8 2
Il/
MxfioweY Job 124-ft Monopole-MFP#23518-051 r1 Page7 of 7
Michael Plahovinsak,P.E. Project Date
18301 State Route 161 Harbor Ridge 16:54:48 09/21/21
Plain City,OH43064 Client Designed by
Phone:614-398-6250 TP-20216
FAX.-mike m en .com Mike
Section Elevation Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Comb. Allow. Criteria
No. P. M- M,ry V. T. Stress Stress
ft V WM W,,,, �y �T Ratio Ratio
L7 34-0(7) 0.010 0.378 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.388 1.000 4 8 2
V
Section Capacity Table
Section Elevation Component Size Critical P aPdl % Pass
No ft Type Element K K Capacity Fail
Ll 124-l 12 Pole TP16x16x0.25 1 -1.67 731.11 5.2 Pass
L2 112-100 Pole TP16x16x0.25 2 -3.61 731.11 20.1 Pass
L3 100-88 Pole TP16xl6x0.25 3 -5.87 731.11 44.6 Pass
L4 88-76.5 Pole TP16x16x0.25 4 -8.47 731.11 76.3 Pass
L5 76.5-76 Pole TP48xl6x0.25 5 -8.53 731.11 76.1 Pass
L6 76-34 Pole TP54.4243x48x0.3125 6 -18.31 3073.26 20.0 Pass
L7 34-0 Pole TP59x52.652lx0.3125 7 -32.70 3319.04 38.8 Pass
Summary
Pole(L4) 76.3 Pass
RATING= 76.3 Pass
Program Version 8.1.1.0-6/3/2021 File:C:/Users/Mike/Dropbox/MFP Engineering Files/Projects/235-TAPP/23 5 1 8-05 1/2 3 5 1 8-05 1 rl.eri
Michael F.Plahovinsak,P.E. Job 124-ft monopole-MFP#23518-051 Page BP&AB Calc
18301 State Route 161 W
Plain City,OH43064 Project Date
Phone:614-398-6250 Harbor Ridge 9/21/2021
email:mike@mfpeng.com Client Designed by
TAPP TP-20216 Mike
Anchor Rod and Base Plate Calculation
TIA-222-H
Factored Base Reactions: Pole Shape: Anchor Rods: Base Plate.
Moment: 1516 ft-kips 18-Sided (16)2.25 in.A615 GR 75 2 in.x 72 in.Round
Shear: 24 kips Pole Dim (D f): Anchor Rods Evenly Spaced fy=55 ksi
Axial: 33 kips 59.00 in On a 66 in Bolt Circle
Anchor Rod Calculation According to TIA-222-H section 4.9.9
Olt, TV= 0.75 nA 4.9.6
Ibolt,= 8712.00 in2Mometoflnertia
P.= 71 kips ComprForce
V„= 1.5 kipS Shear Force
Rut= 325.00 kips Nominal Tensile Strength
Rnv= 198.80 laps(o.s X fn X ag)
Stress Rating= 30.0% SatisfiesnA.H4.9.9
Base Plate Calculation According to TI4-222-H
0= 0.90 nA 4.7
MPL= 1516.3 in-kip Plate Moment
L= 11.6 in Section Length Calculated Moment vs Factored Resistance
Z= 11.6 Plastic section Modulus 156.34 in-kip 573 in-kip
MP= 637.2 in-kip Plastic Moment
Mo 573.4 in-kip Factored Resistance
Stress Rating= 27.3%
Anchor Rods Are Adequate 30.0%
Base Plate is Adequate 27.3%
Job Page
Miehael F.Plahovinsak,P.E. 124-ft monopole-MFP#23518-051 FND
18301 State Route 161 W Project Date
Plain City,OH 43064 Harbor Ridge 9/21/2021
Phone:614-398-6250 (:pent Designed by
email.mike@ajnfpeng.com TAPP TP-20216 Mike
Caisson Calculation
According to TI4,-222-H
1.Foundation overturning resistance calculated with PLS Caisson,for Brords method for rigid piles. Soil layers modeled after recommendations from the geotechnical report
2.Cohesion strength for the upper 22.5 ft has been reduced by 50%
3.An additional load factor of 1.3 has been applied to the reinforcement design
4.Foundation has been designed with applied loads per TIA-222-H
5.Design water table=4 ft below grade
r*+ PIER PROPERTIES CONCRETE STRENGTH (ksi) = 4.50 STEEL STRENGTH (ksi) = 60.00
DIAMETER (£t) = 7.500 DISTANCE FROM TOP OF PIER TO GROUND LEVEL (ft) = 0.50
*** SOIL PROPERTIES LAYER TYPE THICKNESS DEPTH AT TOP OF LAYER DENSITY CU RP PHI
(Et) (ft) (Pcf) (Psf) (degrees)
1 S 4.00 0.00 58.0 1.000 -0.00
2 S 3.00 4.00 58.0 3.000 30.00
3 S 5.00 7.00 58.0 3.852 36.00
4 S 15.00 12.00 58.0 3.124 31.00
+** DESIGN (FACTORED) LOADS AT TOP OF PIER MOMENT (ft-k) = 2297.0 VERTICAL (k) = 33.0 SHEAR (k) = 36.0
ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR AGAINST SOIL FAILURE = 1.33
•** CALCULATED PIER LENGTH (ft) = 22.000
++* CHECK OF SOILS PROPERTIES AND ULTIMATE RESISTING FORCES ALONG PIER
TYPE TOP OF LAYER BELOW TOP OF PIER THICKNESS DENSITY CU KP FORCE ARM
(ft) (ft) (Pcf) (Psf) (k) (ft)
S 0.50 4.00 58.0 1.000 10.44 3.17
S 4.50 3.00 58.0 3.000 64.60 6.14
S 7.50 5.00 58.0 3.852 238.78 10.22
S 12.50 3.43 58.0 3.124 191.69 14.29
S 15.93 6.07 58.0 3.124 -457.03 19.13
*** SHEAR AND MODB:NTS ALONG PIER
WITH THE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR
DISTANCE BELOW TOP OF PIER (ft) SHEAR (k) MOMENT (ft-k) SHEAR (k) MOMENT (ft-k)
0.00 48.5 3135.3 36.4 2351.5
2.20 46.6 3240.9 34.9 2430.7
4.40 38.5 3335.7 28.9 2501.8
6.60 -3.5 3378.8 -2.6 2534.1
8.80 -76.6 3299.4 -57.4 2474.6
11.00 -180.5 3021.1 -135.4 2265.8
13.20 -300.6 2490.2 -225.4 1867.6
15.40 -424.4 1696.3 -318.3 1272.3
17.60 -346.2 790.6 -259.7 592.9
19.80 -183.0 204.9 -137.2 153.7
22.00 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
*** TOTAL REINFORCEMENT PCT = 0.46 REINFORCEMENT AREA (in-2) = 29.26
**• USABLE AXIAL CAP. (k) = 33.0 USABLE MOMENT CAP. (ft-k) = 4951.6
For Design:
Diameter caisson x 22-ft long (21.5-£t F�beded with 0.5-ft above grade)-__._____�
.Concrete strength =4500 PSI 2 28 days. Estimated Concrete Volume 36 CY3.
-------.__--____--_---
1(26) #10 Vertical Reber. Steel Cross-Section = 33.02 in2