HomeMy WebLinkAboutGFA ADDENDUMFlorida's Leading Engineering Source
Environmental • Geotechnical • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold and Special Inspections • Plan Review & Code Compliance
SY
Coastal Construction and Design, Inc. at, Il cie Ob
Attn: Mr. Mario Arbucci
235 NE Abaca Way
Jensen Beach, Florida 34957
Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations
Proposed Three -Story Residence - Addendum #1•
4860 Watersong Way, St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 18-6381.00
Dear Mr. Arbucci:
July 6, 2018
GFA International, Inc. (GFA) is pleased to submit this addendum to our original Report of
Geotechnical Exploration (GFA Report No. 18-6381.00) dated June 12, 2018, for the referenced
project.
GFA was requested to provide additional recommendations regarding pile capacities ,and installation
length. GFA was informed that recommendations for a 60 kip (30 ton) pile were desired.
For piles with an installation grade even with the existing grade of the site at time of drilling, GFA
estimates that a 14-inch diameter augered cast -in -place (ACIP) pile installed to a depth of 32 feet
below existing grade can provide a maximum compressive capacity of 60 kips (30 tons) and a tension
capacity of 6 kips (3 tons). GFA estimates that a 14-inch diameter augered cast -in -place. (ACIP) pile
installed to a depth of 30 feet below existing grade can provide a maximum compressive capacity of
58 kips (29 tons) and a tension capacity of 5 kips (2.5 tons).
The other recommendations from the referenced original geotechnical report are valid, remain
unchanged, and should be followed.
Respectfully Submitted,
GFA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Florida `Rv tififtfajgf,Authorization No. 4930
.``` �aHN• BEN '''%
�` • LICENSE
63218%
---
O•c� �ATSF
'tORIOP.
John Kent,�P.
Senior Project Engineer
Florida Registration No. 63218
. !�Ilie,I an 41�.3-----�
roj Manager
NW Commodity Cove Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 • (772) 924.3575 • (772) 924.3580 (fax) • www.teamgfa.com ,
OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA
• J
ida's Lead or ►ng Eng►neering Source
1 Enviroriniental • Geotechnical •Construction."Materials Testing • Threshold and'Special Inspections • Plan Review & Code Compliance.
`j _ _ _.� :gip`'.. "..: .. ... • : - ...
. June 12, 2018
Coastal. Construction and Design, Inc:
Attn Mr.. Mario Arbucci
235 NE Abaca.Way _ ;
Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 -
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration :.
Proposed -Three -Story. Residence,
4860.Watersong Way, St..Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project_ No.:18-6381.00..
Dear: Mr. Arbucci:
GFA International, Inc: (GFA).''has. completed the 'subsurface exploration and geotechnical -
engineering evaluation .for the,above-.referenced-.project in, accordance_ with the .gebtechnical:
and -.engineering service agreeriient for this project: The scope. of:serviceswas -
completed in
accordan'ce with our Geote'chnical: Engineering .Proposal. (1.8-6381:00); .planned in conjunction
with and.authoriied by you.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
The purpose. of our subsurface exploration was to classify the. nature ,of:the subsurface. soils and
I. general. geomorphic :conditions at :'the site .'and :evaluate their:. impact, .upon..the --.-proposed
construction.. :This report contains, the results of our'su.bsurface,exploration and our engineering.
interpretations. of these with, respect to the project :characteristics described to :us:- including
providing .recommendations_fo.r. site: preparation and the' design of the foundation system: .
Based .on' conversations with the client, .the. project consists of constructing a. three-story.
elevated residence.: A' review of" the FDEP..MapDirect Web Mapping site indicates the ma on
of :the.' ro ert is located :east of.. the Coastal Construction Control Line CCCL GFA.
understands: that the. residence.. will. be .three -levels :or: will be elevated above' a lower. level
garage that :will have walls.and ground floor -slab:of.frangible breakaway design... -
.-The recommendations provided herein are based upon•the above considerations. If the stated
conditions ' are: incorrect -or if project description is •revised., .please inform :GFA so --that :we may :
review-ourrecommendations with_respect to•anymodifications..
Two (2) standard, penetration test'($PT) borings; advanced to depths of approximately 35. feet
below"the' existing
ground surface; were completed -for this study. The subsurface.soil conditions. .
•
encountered in the borings generally consisted of loose to medium dense fine sand..-(SP).-to a" -
depth. of 'approximately 13.5 feet, ' then medium dense. to. dense. fine sand. ($P) to .the boring
termination :depths .of:approiximately 35. feet .below, the. existing:;ground surface.. , As ;an
exception,.a layer:of'.soft organic.silt.(PT).was encountered in:each'boring:-The.organic:silt
layer varied in thickness: from:aproximately .0.5 feet to:1.5 feet.and was present as. shallow. as 8
r Proposed 3-Story Residence Geotechnical Exploration Report,
4860 Watersong'Way, St. Lucie County, Florida June 12;..2018..: .
GFA, Project No: 18-6381.60 Page 3 of 11
TABLE OF. CONTENTS
1.0 . INTRODUCTION .:...:......::.........::....::......::........ ..... ::. ::.. .:. ::. 4
1.1 Scope of Services ........
4.
1.2 Proiect�Description:...:.:....:...:..::::....:::..............::. .. .. ......... ' 4 .
2.0:OBSERVATIONS.:.:.::.:::..::::::...:...5.
..:: ::........::
2.1 -Site-Description::....' .:.:.:... 5.
2.2- Field:Exploration:.:..:::.:..::..:...::.:.:..:::...:::.....:...:.:..::.:.:;:..:..:::.:....;::.:.:.:... 5. .
.. .
2-3. Visual Classification.....:::.::.. .... ... .. � 5. -
2:4"Geomocphic.Conditions.::.:...:.::..:..:,..:::... .... � .. 6
2'.5 Hydrogeological Conditions.: :..:. ................. ......................................... :... 6:
3.0 ENGINEERLNG EVALUATIONAND-RECOMMENDATIONS....... ................ :........:. ...: 6
3.1 General
.3:2 Foundation Recom.mendatiions... :.:.::.:.:. -7:
Pile Iristallatiori:::.:..:.:.::.::.::...::::.:.. 8
j ..... ..:: ........:.. .... ..
:....::.::..:..... g 3.4 Vibration -Monitoring
3:5 General:Site'Preparation:.:....::..:::.:.:.:........... 9
4.0 :REPORT LIMITATIONS: ...:.:.:.:.:..:::.:...:.::...,:..::..: :............. . ....................... 10 .
..
5:0 BASIS FOR .RECOMMENDATIO.NS ' .:..... 10 .
:. Appendix A - Vicinity Map
Appendix B Test Location Plan
Appendix C - Notes. Related to Borings
:Appendix D - Record of Test: Borings
Appendix:E - File Design Curves..
Appendix F -..Discussion. of Soil Groups
r _'Proposed 3-Story Residence G&otechnical Exploration Report
4860' Watorsong, Way, St: Lucie County; Florida June 12; 2018. ,. .
GFA,: P. roject No. 18=6381..00 Page 4 of 11
.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope: of.Services .
The objective of our geotechnical services.was to collect subsurface data for•the subject project,
summarize : the '..test.' results, .and discuss any'' apparent..' site . conditions that may have
geotechnicaf significance for building ,construction; The following. scope of services are provided.
within this report:..
1 P.repare. soil. boring..logs. depicting- the -subsurface soil. conditions encountered during :our
field .exploration. :.
.2:. Review the soil samples. obtained. during our field exploration: for- classification -and . additional
testing if. riecessary.
3:. Evaluate the existing soil conditions found:dunhg.our exp16ratibn,w1th respect to.foundatiori:
support for the.proposed. structure:
4: Provide. recommendations with, respect :to ACIP pile: foundation support of the structure,
includingallowable. ca acities, bearing elevations,: and foundation "design parameters.
. P.. 9. 9 ..
5.. Provide site prep aration'procedures for the: proposed construction. .
11'Project.Description
..Based. on: conversations with the .-client, .the project consists, of: constructing: a, three-story
elevated .residence.. GF . -understands', that the residence will be.three levels or will, be elevated
above a,lower: level- garage that .will have walls. and: ground floor. slab of. frangiblebreakaway ,.
design.. We assume the residence..will utilize. typical: construction;: be .supported .on 'columns.
I terminating on pile: daps .slightly.below.the ground level'elevation; and'the top -of piles
-(tiottom:of
pile caps) would be-at�6bout existing, grade.: - -
A review -of: the FDEP. MapDirect Web .Mapping, site .indicates. the majority. of.the .property is.
Iodated'. east., of: the..Coastal -.Construction Control _Line :(CCCL)::. Therefore.,.. the . proposed ;
residence must. be:.supported . by, a deep foundation System: GFA recommends, that ,augered
cast -in -place (ACIP).piles be used,f6r:this..site.' It is also: recommendedahatfrangible. ground
levef floor slabs.and'ground .leveLwalls. also be pile- supported- due to the. presence.:of unsuitable.
soils (organic :silt), encountered in -the -borings.
We have not received any - information regarding :structural . loads." For the foundation.
recommendations- presented- in this :report, we: assumed -the maximum column load will be. 80.
kips and the maximum wall -loading will be 6 kips per I'inear foot....
A topographic map.of the property has not. been: provided._ . Based.on-the assumption thatthe
proposed residence. will have: a grade approximately. equal to . nearby :residences, .the : site..is
either at ornear final grade: .
r Proposed S-Story Residerice Geotechnical'Exploration: Report.
4860 Watersong Way, St. Lucie County, Florida June.12, 2018... .
GFA. Project No: 18=638'1.00 Page 5 of 19
TFie :recommendations provided herein -are. based, upon the above considerations..' 'If the stated .
,. conditions are. incorrect or if, project' description is.'revised, :please' inform :GFA so. that. We may..
review our. recommendations with respect to any •modifications.
2:0 OBSERVATIONS:':.
2A :Site Description.
The : project site was.' generally grassy wiith some: palm trees 'and bushes:. 'The site • was
approximately: 2 .feet above the. adjacent roadway. The Atlantic: Ocean bordered the east side, of
the property just east of :the dunes.
2:2 Field Exploration
Two: (2)' standard .penetration test (SPT) borings,, advanced to. a depth., of approximately' 35 .feet
,. each,' were.completed for. this study: "The; locations'.'of 'the -borings' are 'illustrated' on -the. -Test.
Location Plan in in. Appendix. B.
The. Standard: Penetration Test (SPT) method.`was.:used :as. the .investigative tool. -within . the
borings,- .:SPT tests were: performed in: substantial accordance -with ASTM D 1586,: ".Penetration.-
Test and Split -'Barrel Sampling of:Soils: The SPT test procedure- consists of driving p.-1.4=inch .
I;D, split=tube.sampler into.the soil profile using a.140=p6und hammer. falling 3Q inches. The.
number. of blows per foot, fior the second'. and -third .-6-inch increment, provides an indication of
soil strength•and'relative density.'
The soil samples recovered from• the borings. were visually classified :and .their stratification .is'
illustrated_ on the boring. logs in Appendix D.'. It should be -noted that soil conditions may vary
between the -strata interfaces indicated: on'the logs. The soil boring data reflectinformation from
the, specific test locations only. The .boring..depths were based .upon our knowledge -of vicinity.
soils and. confined to the.zone.of soil likelyto.be influenced by:the proposed construction..
Site specific: survey 'staking of .the . borings was - not provided for : our- field expI 'ration. -.The.
indicated depth and location' of .each. boring was: approximated based. upon existing grade and:
estimated distances -and relationships to existing.site features.
..; 2.3 - Visual Classification
Soil • samples recovered from our. field 'exploration were returned to our laboratory where ,they
were visually classified 'by' a..geotechnical. engineer in general accordance with the Unified Soil .
Classification System (ASTM D 2487). After reviewing the soil samples; no'laboratory testing
was: deemed necessary: _Bag samples of the soils recovered from our field exploration will be.;
held in,our laboratory for 30 days and then -discarded unless we".ar.e notified otherwise in writirig. '
-The: recovered samples .were not evaluated;, either ..visually or .analytically; for chemical.
: composition or, environmental hazards.: _GFA;Would. be. pleased•to perform these.services for an.
.. additional:16% if required:
Proposed 3-Story Residence Geotechnical Exploration Report.
4860' Watersong Way, St. Lucie County; Florida June• 12; 2018. ' •
GFA.: Project No: '18=6381.00. _ Page 6 of 11
2.4 ..Geomorphic Conditions
The geology.ofthe site as mapped on the. USDA Soil. .Survey Website:consists of Canaveral fine.
sand,: O.to 5. percent slopes (10) and. Kesson=Terra'.Ceia complex.;, tidal (35): These are sandy
soils and organic soils are not indicated. It should be, noted that the Soil Survey generally.
extends to a. maximum depth-of:80 inches below ground.surface and is. not.indicative:of deeper
soil conditions.
The boring logs resulting from our .field exploration are presented : in Appendix D =Record of
Test: Borings; .The: boring logs depict, the observed .soils in graphic. detail. :The .SRT borings
indicate the penetration. resistance N.=values logged' durinthe drilling and sampling. activities:.
The classifications .and::descriptions shown -on. -the:: logs are. generally .based :upon 'visual.
characterizations. of: the recovered -soil 'samples:.:The soil.. samples. have been elassified::in:
general .. accordance with .the -Unified Soil-: Classification : System; modified as necessary to
describe:typical .Florida cond.itions._See Appendix F Qiscussion.of_Soil.Groups ; for:a detailed
... description of various soil groups.'
The: subsurface soil conditions encountered in ahe borings generally• -consisted : of: loose: to
: medium .dense: fine sand (SP) to 4 depth .•of •approximately 13.5 feet, then . medium dense to
dense fine sand (SP) to the' . boring - termination' , depths. of approximately, 35 feet below .the
II existing ground surface. As an exception; a layer of organic silt (PT).was encountered 'in each
boring... The .organic silt'layer varied in thickness frorri'approximately-'0.5 feet to 1.5 feet and, was.
'present. as shallow as .8 feet and as.:deep 'as 9.5. feet'. below existing grade. Please refer to
Appendix D.= Record of Test Borings for. a detailed account of -the borings:
2.5 Hydro geological Conditions
On the , date :'of : our field exploration, ,the groundwater :table.was. encountered' at depth of
..approximately.2 9 and 3.2 feet - below the existing ground. surface: The..groundwatertable. will.
fluctuate seasonally:depehding .upon local rainfall and other site specific -and/or local influences
`including.the Iwater-levels in the. -nearby Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River):and Atlantic Ocean ..
-with tidal influences. Brief.p6nding of stormwater may:occur across the site after heavy rains.
Na additional evaluation was included, in our scope of _work in relation to the wet seasonal high
• groundwater:table or existing well fields in the vicinity:. Well fields may influence Water table
levels. and. cause 'significant fluctuations. : If a :more compreheFisive water table analysis is
necessary, please.contact our office for additional -guidance:
3.0. ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.,-
3.1 ,General
Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of. the, site and subsurface conditions at:the property,
With: respect to.•the, planned constructions. and our recommendations for. site.:preparation- and
foundation support, are based upon: (1) our site observations, .(2) the field data obtained;:and. (3) :. .
our. understanding of.. the project information and. structural.. conditions as ' presented_ in. this. '
Proposed 3-Story Residence Geotechnical Exploration Report.
48.60 Watersorig Way, St. Lucie County; Florida .,.June 12;.,2018.
GFAP... roject No: 18=6381.00. Page 7 of 11
report. If the stated conditions are incorrect, or if.'the project description is. 'revised, please
inform GFA so that we may review our. recommendations. -with respect to any riiodifications.
We :note that the applicability of geotechnical _recommendations. is very. dependent upon project
characteristics, specifically, (1) improvement aocations; (2) 'grade alterations, (3) and. actual
applied structural. loads.. For that reason, .GFA.must be provided With. and review the: preliminary
and: final, site :and :grading plans,: and structural design loads ao validate .all :recommendations
:,provided :in. this report.. Without performing. this. review, :'our recommendations should. not..be.
.relied upon for. final design or.coristeuction of any. site improvements;
3.2 Foundation Recommendations..
The residential- structure will: be located east of the Coastal : Construction Control . Line:
(CCCL) and: therefore . a pile. supported. foundation is:.required.. We,-. recommend*: that
frangible. -ground floorsfabs and ground level walls also be.pile-supporte'd.due to the presence of .
- unsuita a soils: organic si t encountece in t e. orings:
The.:following design parameters were, usedfor.developing pile recommendations:_ .
For CCCL construction, the FDEP'has established a 100-year storm"ele'vation (bottom of .
lowest structural .member) of +1.7.0 to: +17.9 feet.-NGVD (depends, on location): for.
structures.within St. Lucie County; -
➢. For CCCL construction, the FDEP has, established.a.100-year storm: erosion elevation
(design: scour elevation) -of +2.7 feet: NGVD for all.-of.St. Lucie County:
➢. A. loss Hof soil support between the bottom: of lowest structural member anddesign scour. ..
elevation. (+2,7. feet ' NGVD) ..was included. -in compressive, tensile, and lateral pile..
capacity analyses.
:We assume the residence: will utilize typical construction.and be supported on columns
terminating ;on pile, caps slightly below. the ground floor-elevation;.We assume. that.fill will
'be placed to achieve final'(or -near final) .grade beforeinstalling the: pile: foundations, and-.
top. of .piles. (bottom of pile caps) would be about +8 feet.NGVD:
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the .boring. locations, GFA.'recommends
that an. angered.. cast=in=place (ACIP) :pile deep foundation system be' used to support the :.
proposed -residence: ACIP. pile installation procedures should be performed. in accordance. with
the guidelines presented in the latest edition of the..Deep-Foundations. lnstitute's.Augered Cast -
In -.Place Pile Manual:
The results of. -our ACIP:pile capacity evaluations. are summarized -in:the table below. The: lateral
capacity and pile top. deflection were calculated: using: the. commercially, available ALLPILE 7.0
software:
..ACIP
Pile Recommendations for Pile Supported Structures.'.
Nominal .
..•
Maximum...
:. Pile, .
Pile-.- .
Pile Top
Recommended
Pile • •
.Aliowable;Pile
..Allowable
Grout
Diameter
Elevation
Pile Tip.- ::
Length
Compression •
"Tension .
Pile Lateral .
Strength
in _ .
.- NGVD
Elevation
ft
Ca acit *
Ca aci `.
Ca acit `*
si
.Kips
14
Unknown .
' .Unknown.. :
' . ''35.'
70. Kips .
6:Kips' .
(F7 e.
Kips
5,000..
• Fixedflead
*. Pile.Capa
city Graphs :shown in.Appendix E.
** For.calculated pile: top deflection of % inches at ground-surface/top .of pile, elevation.
..The:pile design curves resulting from ouranalysis.are. :presented'.in:Appendix E. , If.piles
having.-
..'.either lesser.br. greatercapacities:are..required other.thah those ,presented. h::the. above table;
GFA would be :please"d..to provide _further recommendations upon request::
..The, ACIP piles must beAnstalled: at least 3 feet into dense sand/cemented sand strata''
Therefore; lengths grea(ter, than. 35 -feet may be. :required. The 35 :feet pile length is. based
on--installing.-the.:piles',at .site- gradd li.e., grade. approximately even with the -adjacent
roatlway) existing'at time, of drilling: If additional filF will be. -required -to raise the site'to
achieve design grade the piles will be longer -according .to.the.'depth of fill added..
•
The'dense, sand/cemented Sand. strata may provide auger refusal:.during ACIP:' pile.
installation: The piles- may, be term inated'. prior" to achieving fhe:.recommended 35. feet.
depth if auger refusal -is realized. :.Refusal.iS: defined aS.a:minimum of-3 minutes
for. 3 inches or less auger penetration'into• the very dense strata:
The :following notes:are.also applicable -to tfie AGIP pile design:,:.
1. .GFA assumed that the piles will have a minimum of 1 percent:steel reinforcement for the.
analysis. ACIP; piles. should bereinforced over their-ehtire'_lehgth. for:tension capacity:
The- reinforcement shall .be as .designed. by the project Structural. Engineer..-
2.. ' .Structural. stresses in the : piles .may impose. a. more 'severe.. Limitation on the design:
capacity.. Therefore, we: recommend the., allowable stresses; be verified for the selected
pile.section _bythe.project Structural. Engineer:
3. The pile.reinforcement should be sufficiently embedded in.the pil&.cap to afford'a fixed
end.connection,:as required.
3.3 Pile installation
Pile,design.and installation should.be in.accordance with:the applicable:sections of'the.Florida'....
Building :Code and .other applicable federal. state and local "re' uiremertfs..ln addition; piles
..
should be installed: in accordance:with .the -following: .
1. Pile Length. - The proposed piles ;should .be installed .as- determined by the .inspecting.
Geotechnical Engineer.,.
► 'Proposedd 3-Story Residence Geotechnical Exploration Report
4860'Wat0song Way, St: Lucie County; Florida June 12;.2018..:
-. GFA. Project No. 18=6381.60. .Page 9 of 11
2. Spacing -.Piles installed in.. groups should be spaced at a center -to -center distance. of.not
Tess -than 3 pile diameters.
3. Plan Location The center of, the -top of:any pile. at'cut=off should be' displaced laterally_
no more than 3 inches from the position shown on the. plans. This applies to both single.
piles.'arid piles installed in groups.
4. Vertical AliQnment := The:vertical alignment. of the piles should not .deviate'from the: plumb
by: more than per inch. per foot of: length:
: 5. Beinforcing..Cage. Positioning..- .The::top. of the reinforcing.. cages: installed in. the piles
should.not.be more than.6 inches above .and no. more than 3: inches below Ahe positiona
shown in the plans; ..The: reinforcing cages should:be positioned .concentricallywithi.n the: :
grouted pile shaft: The grout. cover over longitudinal reinforcing. bars: should not be. less .:
than. 3.inches:.Reinforcing centralizers.shall-be placed at .8i mum_spacing:of 15 feet at
the .lower.portion, of.'the pile:and at'5-feet from the top ofthe:cago.
6. "- Adjacent'Piles A minimum 'elapsed Aime of 12 hours should be specified for the
�.
installation of. pileslocated within 5feet., center -to -center; of each other.''-.
7. -Grout.Factor:-.The minimum acceptable grout factor (i;e. actual grout volume divided: by .
theoretical grout'volume).should be
--: -3.4 Vibration Monitoring..
The.proposed construction: will be within proximity to nearby residential structures and. roadways
that could .be susceptible. to damage from vibrations generated, at the -site. We _recommend that
these. structures and other' bordering landmarks be monitored using, a r seism ograph.to determine
the. extent:of vibration absorption :they are experiencing during :all aspects of. construction. _The.
seismograph. used :for 'monitoring::at the site.. should -have the: capability to' -measure ground ..
velocities. along vertical, transverse, and longitudinal axes.- The. project Structural. Engineer.
should ,.establish -allowable, ground velocities that the bordering facilities can safely: withstand:
without incurring.damage. .
3.5 General. Site -Preparation
+ - Initial site preparation should consist of performing stripping. (removing surface vegetation; near:
surface roots,,and other deleterious matter)'and_.clearing operations.* This should be. performed
within, and to.. a distance . of.:five �(5) feet beyond; -the � perimeter. of the proposed. construction. .
Foundations.and any below grade remains of other structures that.are within the footprint.of the..: .
new construction should also be removed. 'Similarly, utility lines should.- be removed or -properly.
abandoned 'so that they will.'not affect new.'overlying, structures. -
The: stripped areas: should be proof rolled -and. compacted until the upper 2 feet of soil achieve-ei
densi of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum. dry density (ASTM D.155:7), We
..
recommend using a. steel drum vibratory roller with. sufficient..'static :weight and, vibratory impact -
energy to achieve the required. compaction.. Density tests should. be performed.on the proof-
I
Proposed 3-Story Residence Geotechnical Exploration Report* -
4860 Watersong Way, St: Lucie County, Florida June:12;.2018-- „
&A. Project No. 18=6381.00.' Page 10 of 11 :
rolled. surface at a frequency of. not less-than'one test per 2,500 square feet; or a -minimum of .
-four (4)tests,-whichever:is greater:
Fill. material required for the project should be inorganic (classified:asBP, SW, GP, GW, SP-SM;
SW-SM, GW-.GP., 'GP -;Gm) containing not' more 'than 5 .percent (by weight) 'organic materials., '
Fill 'materials having
silt/clay-size soil ines:contents. of more than'. an. percent, s ou not.'
be'used:.Each-lift of:fill should lie compacted'and:tested priortoahe placemenf of the next lift: -
Density tests should'be performed Within th& iill.at a,frequency'of: not :less :than;one:test ,per
2,500 'squaee-feet per lift. in the building:area, or:a minimum -of three (3) tests per lift, whichever
is greater..
Following: installation' of the -ACIP. piles and construction of the pile :caps and/or grade. beams,.
: the areas next to: the:pile caps and grade. beams: will. require.' backfilling: The backfill,'should' be:
placed in 6-. to 8=inch .thick loose lifts and compacted :to : at least 95 . percent of the modified .
Proctor maximum- d density ASTM `D .1557 . ' Portable a ui meht,.�such as vibrato sleds,
ry. ty ( ) q P vibratory-
`acks, orwalk=behind rollers, should be:used.-for.corri action -of the.fill next to ile ca s
-.:jumping J. p P . P. :.
and. grade;beams:.... .
:The.' construction activities associated with: site preparation .and .foundation installation' may
produce vibrations that_ could adversely impact"nearby-structures: ,.We recommend 'that. these
structure be .monitored before and during the eafthwork and foundation. construcfion phases of
the project..A proposal for GFA personnel to provide the vibration monitoring.during construction.
will be provided upon request:
4.0. REPORT LIMITATIONS
This consulting,report-has- been prepared for the:exclusive:use of the current owner(s) and other
members: of.the design, team for the'proposed residence located'at 4860 Watersorig.Way in. St. -
Lucie County, . Florida. This. report.has been 'prepared in . accordance- with- generally accepted.
local geotechnical engineering practices; no.Other.warranty is expressed.or implied.
The evaluation -submitted in this: report is: based in part; upon the data, collected during a .field:'
exploration. However,: the. nature'and extent of variations throughout the subsurface profile.'may:
not become. evident- until• the time of construction... If. variations then appear evident;: it may, be
.,,,necessary to reevaluate the _information and professional opinions.' provided in this report. In the
event . changes: are made in : the: nature,.. design, or 'location.: of the proposed structure, the
evaluation acid , opinions contained in this' report.shall not be considered- valid unless the
changes. are reviewed- and conclusions modified. or verified in,writing by GFA:..
5.0. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis and recommendations. submitted' in this report are., based on the. data obtained --
from the :borings. performed at the locations indicated on. the Test Location Plan. in. Appendix B:.
:This .report does'not :reflect any :variations, which may occur between the, borings...While :the.
borings"are. representative of. the- subsurface conditions at. their. locations.. and. vertical reaches; : -
local variations. characteristic of the subsurface :soils of the region are anticipated and, may, be
encountered. The: delineation. between soil types shown on the::boring' logs is :approxirriate and
GF
1 i
• ''�'i''i�i!ry a .�'•�
Site Locatiori
�V
s
Note, Aerial Photograph from GoogleEarth Website .
Test.Location Plan: 4860 Watersong Way, St. Lucie County, FL
MicheIle-Than k.lin:. C'FA'-•Saint Lucie County:. Property" Appraiser
.June 4,2018 ... .11',128
0 0.0075 6.015 -0.03 rri
0 0.015 0.03 0.06km'
'n V Immatbe t ce emee b to correct attllt tine be tRt segect b'da ege aea it lotwa ffast•C.,
000pyrgltzotssautlwe coney arcperyApPrater.xtrngtts atemeo.
Approximate Standard Penetration Test (SPT).Boring Locations.
9
I
NOTES RELATED TO BORING RECORDS AND
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILES
1, Groundwater levels (if encountered).were recorded either during, or folio
wing. boring completion on-
the:date indicated. Fluctuations 'in. groundwater levels are common- seethe reporttext for -a discussion.
2. . The boring locations.were identifiedin the field by estimated distances and offsets from existing reference
marks and/or other site landmarks. .
3.. The completed.boreholes Were.backfilled to adjacent site. grade using drilling spoils and patched with
asphalt cold mix in pavement.areas.
4. The Log of Boring -records represent our interpretation of soil_ conditions based on visual classification of
the soil sample recovered from.the borings.
5. The Log of Boring. records are subject to the limitations.; conclusions; and recommendations presented in
the report text:
6. The Standard: Penetration Test (SPT) N-values contained on the Log. of Boring records. refer to the total .
'..blowcounts of a 140-pound drop hammer falling.30 inches required to drive a split -barrel sampler a total
distance bf-12 inches into soil strata at specific depth intervals.
7. The Hand. Cone Penetrometer (HCP) values contained -on Log. of Boringrecordsand the Cone
..
Penetration Test (CPT) values' contained on the Cone Penetration' Sounding logs refer to the'cone tip
resistance recorded when pushing the cone tip into the soil strata at specific depth intervals..
8. The soil:arid/or. rock strata interfaces shown on the Log of Boring.records are approximate and may vary: .
from those shown_on the logs. The soil and/or rock descriptions.shown on the Log-of.Boring records refer
to conditions at the'specific location tested. Soil/rock'conditions may vary between test locations. .
9. Relative• density for coarse -grained soils (sarids/gravels) and consistency for fine-grained soils (silts/clays)
are described as follows::'-
..
Coarse Grained'Soils, Sands and Gravels :
Fine Grained Soiis
Silts.and
Clays)
SPT
N-Value
HCP Value
(kg/cm)
CPT Value
(tsf) ...
Relative :
Density ..
SPT
N-Value:
HCP.Value
(kg/cm) _
CPT Value
• : (tsf)
Consistency
0-4 :
- 0=.16
0-20..'Very
Loose
:0-2
0-20
0-3
-Very Soft
5-10.
.17-36
21-40 `.:
' .. Loose '•:
.. 3-4-..
21-35.'
4-6' ..
Soft.
11-30
:.37-116
4:1=120
Med.:Dense .
' 5-8 :.
>35
7-12
Firm -
31-50
117-196
121-200
Dense.
: 9-15
..
A -25
>,50
> 196 :.
>200 ' .- -
Ve , Dense
16;30
26-50.
Very. Stiff.
..
>30 .
.
>50
Hard ... , .
90. Grain size descriptions are as follows:.:
Description::
Particle:Siie Limits.''.
Boulder ` . "
'Greaterthan 12 inches
.. Cobble' .. .' = .. ',
3 to 12 inches
Coarse Gravel :: = .:
3/a.to.3 inches
Fine Gravel : .:
No. 4 sieve.to 3/4 inch
Coarse: Sand
No: •10 to No..4 sieve:
Medium Sand.
No. 40 to No. 10 sieve
Fine Sand '.:
No. 200ao No. .40 sieve -
Fines (Silt/Clay).
Smaller than No. 200 sieve
11. 'Definitions for modifiers used .in soil/rock descriptions:
Proportion
Modifier ..:
Diameter
ApproArnate R•
.00t Modifier
<5%. . ....
Trace
Less than 1/32"
Fine roots .
.5/o to 12/° ...
Little
ls2" to. /4''
Small roots
12% to 30%
Some
1/4" to T' .
: Medium roots....
30% to:50%. .
And
Greater than 1 ". "
Large roots -
Organic Soils: Soils containing vegetative tissue in various stages of decomposition having 'a.fibrous to: amorphous
texture.' Usually: having a dark brown to black.color'and an organic odor:
Organic Content.Modifeirs: <25%: Slightly to Highly Organic? 25%.to 750/6:. Muck; >75%: Peat .
LOG OF'
-BORING SPTi-
:
GFA.Infernational
PAGE 1 OF 1
�RNAT��a'
I
CLIENT .Coastal Construction and Design ' .
..
PROJECT NAME . Lof46:V1latersong
.
PROJECT NUMBER 18-6381.00
PROJECT LOCATION:
4860 Watersong Way,'Ft. Pierce
:DRILLING CONTRACTOR . GFA International Inc.:
HOLE DEPTH 35 ft.
-
HOLE DIAMETER
DRILLER PM/JB r
DATE STARTED, 5/31/18:.
COMPLETED. 5/31/18
DRILL -RIG CME-45" -
GROUND WATER LEVEL: �ATTIME OF DRILLING 3:20 ft . .
j
:METHOD SPT' ;-
LATITUDE':27.3907
'LONGITUDE': -80.26621
NOTE: ....
HAMMER TYPE ..- .
.
A SP N T ALU .A . V E
- O .
U ..
.. m
: W
20 40 60: - 80.
..
w
P—
M:o
a O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
w
w
>O ..
oz
.
.�
�z
w
Zz
.� w0--
.. PL :' MC'. 1L
—; .
. "
p .
W....�
_I
-
n:
� Z
Ci
m O
:.i
Z
o.z
z
20 40 60 80 :.
a
..
W
Q .
U:
OU
❑
BrdWn fine sand, trace shell (SP)
2
:..
�..
5.
7,
O
4,'•r
2_ _
17
28
.
Lou
9_
w
. 5
5.0 ...
Grayfine sand, trace shell (SP)
3
7
e .
15,
aq
7.0
Gray_fine'sand with. few shell fragments (SP)
4 .
8
Ix
5
2
;o
ss ray highly organic silt (PT)
3
7
N
10.
Grayfirie sand, trace shell (SP)
a
w:;
.
Gray fine sand, trace'shell,. trace cemented sand (SP)
��
:. ;.-,
6 .
30
47.
15.
z
0
o
.
•. •'
18.5..
:...
fine sand Gray , trace shell (SP)
ao
7
30.
25
5 5.
20.
23.5-
Grayfine sand with shell fragments (SP).
24
..:.
�•:�
8
n
16
33.
►-
25.
.�.•.
c
•
28.5.
.
Gray fine sand with few she lI-fragments (SP)
�
30
a•::
•.: .
9
za.
22
46.
LL
30
CP
s
:.:
..:
33
Gray fine sand, frace:shell .
15
;: •:.:.
35.0..
15
29.
Bottom, of Borehole at 35.0 feet:
LOG OF
BORING SPT-2-
A"GFA,International
PAGE 1 OF. 1
�fRNAT10a ..
-
CLIENT . Coastal Construction and Design -
PROJECT NAME . Lot 46 Watersong
.
PROJECT NUMBER 18-6381.00
PROJECT LOCATION'
4860 Watersong Way, Ft: Pierce. .
DRILLING CONTRACTOR . GFA InternaUonal:lnc..
HOLE DEPTH 35 ft.' .:
HOLE • .DIAMETER, .
DRILLER PM/JB
DATE STARTED. 5/31/18. .
COMPLETED 5/31/18
DRILL RIG CME-45 --
GROUND WATER LEVEL: VAT'TIME OF DRILLING 2.90 ft
METHOD SPT
LATITUDE 27.3907
LONGITUDE=80.26045
NOTE:
HAMMER.WPE ... .
o.
o.
.o
TN VALUE A:
SP. .. E
.
_
0 .
(U ..
�
ft
ti
20 40 60: 80
r
w
�..:
)
=C9
O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION :
w
g
>
z.
¢
D.z
I.- w
z
w
. PL :'.MC .. .LL.
. 1 --1
p
w....qa
9:zl
-.
Wiz..
U..0
co O
>
z"
z
ft F
. 20 40 60 80-
. .
R
w
Q
0..
❑ FINES CONTENT %
- .
CIO
_ 20 .• 40 60 "80
1.o
.
Gray: fine sand (SP) ....
5
J
N
10
: 13
15.
23
.
.
2.
Gray fine. sand; trace shell (SP)
2s
30 .
.
U
15-
Z
5 .
3
20
35
. aw
.•....• .
.....
6.0
..
25
Gray fine sand (SP), .
s
.. .
:..
.
4
s
15
•
o
�
Gray highly organic silt (PT)'
N
—'
9.5 ...
J5
2
3
W
10
Grayfine 'sand, trace shell'(SP)
.2
0
a
13.5
Gray fine sand With cemented sand, trace shell (SP)
ao.
;.
6.
1e
48
15.
.,,.
18.5' ... .
;•; .';'.::
Gray fine sand with few shell fragments (SP)
32
7
26
50.
20.
w
a
.:.
23.5
• ' •
Gray fine sand With shell fragments (SP)
s
•.•
g•
P
25.
15
24.
c
a
•
28.5.
a'
`:••:';:
Gray fine sand, traceshell (SP)
15
..
.... .
...
9
27
44.
g
30
:;.:..
LLJ
1pAL
20
U.
35.0 .
P3
45.
i
Bottom. of borehole at.35,0 feet:
. ,
•
-- - -----=�1_la�- ---
�-
-- -
Lateral Capacity with a Free Head'Condltion
ALL-PRECkifre6i 5blY0re AMPI MiDOI:
-Lbeesedb;'' .. ..
..
PILE:DEFLECTIDN vs LOADING
Single Pile, Khdafd=1; K6cA
:D. (Zp) DEFLECTION,yt-in
p mh.(Zp).
Pile Top-ft -L00:
0
+1.00 Pile;Top-ft•
0
0..
10
10
20
7.
'20
Lateral .Moment
_Vertical
yt Slope. Max.
25. '.No.. Load. Load .'
. Load.
at.Top at Top. . Moment .
25
(kip) (kip-ft).
• ' (kip)
' (in) • (inlin) . (bpA)'.
. 0.7 -' 1-0.
10.0. -
.0.1 .. . OAO 4.4 ..
_
2 " 2.1- 3.0
10.0
02• 0.00 "' 13.8
3. 3'.5. 5.0''
10.0'
0:4 0.00 '23.3
4 7.0 '
.'10.0,
O.S. -0.01. .33.1-
.
.4.9
'S' 5.6 8.0
10.0'
0.6- ' -0.01 -37.9 ' -
6 6.1 ' 9.0
0.7 AM _ 42.8 '.
30 ' 7 . 7.0 10.0
.10.0
10.0
_
0.8 401 47.8
.30 '
CMITech
Software:
Figure 2.
3a
p,
fl
m
41
ip.•
��' � . .
�c�•
�
ipth 4Woinininin
�LA
.
..
oo.oaobb
bb
Obbbb
5
8
ti
'®•�-g,
B
b in bid b bb
-
".
'O0Oo000
.�. ..
..
o o.00000
tt
•m
m
o.
N r-
O
o..
z.
p
:0
CAQ. N p rr AMU
.
� �
�'I � ��I �'I
1 I'I I
I'I'I I I I I L I'I I•I I'� I�I I �I I I LJ I I I'1 I I I I'I I I�I 11'I'I I I I I I I'I I I I'� 03�3'
DISCUSSION OF SOIL GROUPS
COARSE GRAINED• SOILS
General. A soil is classified as coarse -grained if more than 50 percent ofia representative .
..
sample of the material is retained on the No. 200 sieve:
GW.-and :SW 'Groups: These groups comprise.: well' -graded .gravelly. Arid sandy soils
containing_little or no plastic. fines. (less, than .5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve): The low.:.
fines content does 'not.noticeably..change the. shear, strength_characteristics .of'these:soils-
and does not interfere with theirfree-'draining. characteristics.
GP. and SP Groups: Poorly graded gravels and sands Containing, little -or. no, plastic fines,
(less.'than. 5 percent passing.- the.' No:.200 sieve) are in the -GP and. SP . groups.. The.: :
h
materials, can,. be called'uniform.gravels, uniform sands, or non-uniform:mixtures of very
4
coarse materials and very fine sand,.with..interriiediate.sizes. lacking (sometimes:.called
skip -graded,. -gap -graded; or step -graded.). This last .group:often, results from. boerow'pit:.:
excavation :in which -gravel: and sand layers are mixed.:':
GM:and'SM Groups.'.In general; :the.GM.and SM groups comprise .grayels or'sands:With'
fines,(more than 12.,percent passing the No. '200aieve)'.having•little or. no plasticity: The,
plasticity, index and liquid limit: of soils in- these groups, plot below 'the. "A":line on the.
plasticity chart: The gradation of..the material is.'not considered significant and both well
and poorly. graded .materials -ate included.
GC'and.SC Groups. In general, -the GC_and.SC groups comprise gravelly.o.r sandy soils
containing fines: (more than 12 percent passing this No; :200, sieve) having' plasticity
characteristics. The plasticity index and. liquid limit of.soils in these groups plot above the
-W'line on the lastk i chart
P ty.
FINE GRAINED, SOILS
General: :A soil is: classified as fine=grained if more than. 50 percent of .a representative
sample of the material passes the No: 200-sieve..
„
ML.and MH Groups. These groups comprise inorganic silts (ML) and elastic silts (MH)
having either -low (L),or high'(H) liquid limits, respectively: M,L soils have a liquid limit of
I� less than 50while MH soils have a liquid limit;of 50 and greoter.'Silts'and elastic silts can::
alsocontain varying amounts.of. sand. and, gravel. Also included in this group are loess