HomeMy WebLinkAboutGFA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING�, CbP�=AGSM
�`. 5ince1986 v
Environmental • Geotechnical • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold and Special Inspections • Plan Review & Code Compliance
June 22, 2015
Florida Fruit Association
Attention: Mr. Leo George
716 20th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32962
SCANNED
BY
St. Lucie Count'
Subject: Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
Dear Mr. George:
We are pleased to submit this geotechnical report for the referenced project. This letter
describes the project, field explorations, results of testing, findings, and information from
outside references. The scope of services was completed in accordance with our
Geotechnical Engineering Proposal (15-1194.00) dated June 1, 2015, planned in conjunction
with and authorized by you.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on a site plan prepared by Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated 5/28/2015 (reproduced as the
Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of expanding an
existing stormwater retention system. Based on a topographic survey prepared by Masteller
& Molar, Inc. dated 5/18/2015, the elevation at the existing retention area is about +16 to +17
feet NGVD and the expansion area about +17 to +18 feet NGVD (note: NGVD assumed,
datum line not indicated).
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
The subsurface conditions at location of the stormwater retention area were explored on June
8, 2015, with four Auger borings. The auger borings were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 1452, "Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings". Hand
Cone Penetrometer (HCP) tests were conducted at one -foot intervals in one of the auger
borings. The HCP test, in conjunction with information about the soil type, is empirically
correlated to the relative density of subsurface soils.
521 NW Enterprise Drive • Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 • (772) 9243575 " (772) 924.3580 (fax) • www,teamgfa.com
OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA
Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning June 22, 2015
Rio Citrus Page 2
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
The borings were completed at the approximate locations noted on the Test Location Plan.
The boring logs are attached. The depths on the boring logs are below the existing ground
surface at the time the borings were performed. GPS coordinates obtained at boring locations
are noted on logs.
In addition to the present exploration, our firm performed a geotechnical exploration for the
proposed building. The results are presented in the GFA Engineering Report No. 1194.00.
FINDINGS
The project site was an operating agricultural .facility. The grade at the site appeared to
generally match that from the topographic survey. A one and two-story structure occupied the
site. One and two-story structures were located adjacent to the property to the west. The
Belcher Canal bordered the south side of the property.
The subsurface soils encountered in the borings generally consisted of fine sand (SP) with
silty and clayey layers (SP-SM,SP-SC,SM,SC) to the boring termination depths of 10 feet.
The HCP values generally indicated that the soils were medium dense from the ground
surface to the bottom of the borings at depths of 10 feet.
Ground water was encountered at depths of 6'/< and 7 feet below existing grade at the boring
locations. The groundwater was measured about 24 hours after drilling.
LABORATORY TESTS
Laboratory permeability tests were run on six (6) selected samples from the borings. The
samples were compacted in the permeameter mold to densities that approximated the
existing field conditions. After saturating the samples, falling head permeability tests with an
initial head of 1'/z feet were performed. We consider the test results present a good order of
magnitude approximation of the in situ permeabilities. The results are as follows:
GP
Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
June 22, 2015
Page 3
Sample
Dry
Coefficient of
Depth
Density
Permeab lity, k
cm/sec
ft/da
Boring
(feet)
Sample Description Summary
(pcf)
AB-1
4-7
Brown fine sand, little silt and
103.2
6.9 x 10'
2.0
clay and shell SP
AB-2
2-4
Brown fine sand, little silt and
107.6
< 1.0 x 10"5
< 0.01
clay SP-SM,SP-SC
AB-2
4-7
Light gray fine sand, little silt
104.1
5.5 x 10-4
1.6
and clay SP
AB-3
3-7
Brown fine sand, some silt and
104.2
< 1.0 x 10-5
< 0.01
clay SM,SC
AB-3
7 - 8+/z
Gray fine sand, little silt and
105.4
5.1 x 10"5
0.1
clay SP-SM,SP-SC
AB-4
21,12- 7
Light brown fine sand, little silt
98.9
3.5 x 10;4
1.0
and cla SP-SM,SP-SC
`The vertical permeabilites provided should be multiplied by 2 to obtain horizontal
permeability values.
Most naturally occurring soils and many man -placed soils are anisotropic soils, which means
they have greater horizontal permeabilities than vertical permeabilities, as well as greater
horizontal hydraulic conductivities than vertical hydraulic conductivities. Based on the
literature and our experience with these types of soil, we recommend using a horizontal
permeability value that is twice the vertical permeabilities reported above.
USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL AND USDA SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION
We reviewed the USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle topographic map of the area, entitled
Ft. Pierce NW. Revisions to this map were based on aerial photographs taken in 1983. The
USGS map showed the project site is located on a broad area with an elevation between 15
and 20 feet NGVD. The Belcher Canal borders the south side of the property.
The site is shown on sheet number 9 of the Soil Survey of the St. Lucie County Area, Florida,
issued by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture in March 1980. According to the Soil Survey, Winder
sand, depressional (54) occur at the site.
The soil survey describes Winder sand, depressional (54) as poorly drained, nearly level soil
in depressional areas. The profile consists of'fine sand with trace/little silt (SP,SP-SM)(A-3)
from the surface to a depth of % feet, fine sand with little/some silt and clay (SM-SC,SC)(A-2-
4,A-2-6) from % to 5+/4 feet, and then sand with trace to some silt (SP,SP-SM,SM)(A-3,A-2-4)
to a depth of 6% feet. With unimproved drainage, it is ponded for 6 to 9 months or more
annually. The scattered low ridges are covered with water for a few days to about 3 months.
The water table is within a depth of 40 inches for most of the rest of the year. Only for short
periods in dry seasons is the water table below a depth of 40 inches. This soil is not ponded
in drainage districts or in other areas that have water control systems. Permeability is rapid in
the surface and subsurface layers, slow to very slow in the subsoil, and moderate to rapid in
GFP
, a r
Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning June 22, 2015
Rio Citrus Page 4
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
the substratum. The high water table is apparent and 2 feet above the ground surface to 1
foot below the ground surface.
It should be noted that the Soil Survey generally extends to a maximum depth of 80 inches
(approximately 63/4 feet) below ground surface and is not indicative of deeper soil conditions.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RAINFALL INFORMATION
According to the SFWMD web site the rainfall in Martin and St. Lucie Counties from June 1 to
June 8, 2015 was 0.79 inches (50% of normal for that time of month, normal monthly total for
all of June is 6.76 inches), for the month of May 2015 was 1.61 inches (43% of monthly
normal), for the month of April 2015 was 4.58 inches (161 % of monthly normal), for the month
of March 2015 was 1.49 inches (37% of monthly normal), for the month of February 2015
was 4.65 inches (185% of monthly normal), and the month of January 2015 was 1.24 inches
(59% of monthly normal). The 2014 total rainfall was 55.54 inches (103% of normal), 2013
total rainfall was 51.34 inches (95% of normal), and the 2012 total rainfall was 51.21 inches
(94% of normal).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The subsurface soils encountered in the auger boring corresponded well with the information
presented in the Soil Surrey. The recent rainfall history indicates that the observed water
table level should be below normal for this time of year. Drainage improvements in the vicinity
indicate the average wet season high water table should be below that stated in the Soil
Survey. The water level in the canal on the south side of the property will influence the water
table.
Based on the above data and the results of our field exploration, we estimate that the
average wet season high water table level is 4 feet below the ground surface at the boring
locations. However, should rainfall intensity and duration or total rainfall quantities exceed the
normally anticipated rainfall quantities, the groundwater level may exceed our estimate of the
average wet season high groundwater level.
The soil survey and the soil samples obtained from the borings indicate there are silty and
clayey layers with very low permeability. It should be noted for drainage system design that
the soil layer described by the soil survey and boring logs as sand with little/some silt/clay
has a low permeability. The Soil Survey generally gives the coefficient of permeability for this
material as less than 0.4 feet per day (1.4 x 104 cm/sec). Based on our experience the
coefficient of permeability ranges from 0.01 to 0.1 feet per day (10 4 to 10'S cm/sec) for these
low permeability soils. 'Perching" of the ground water on top of these layers after rainfall
should be expected.
GP
Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning June 22, 2015
Rio Citrus Page 5
St. Lucie.County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
CLOSURE
This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners
and other members of the design team for the project. 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 information
and professional opinions as provided in this report. In the event changes are made in the
nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the evaluation and opinions contained
in this report shall not be considered valid, unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions
modified or verified in writing by GFA International.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained
from the tests performed. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur
between borings. While the borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at their
respective locations and for their 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 soil logs is approximate and the description represents our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated boring locations on the particular
date drilled.
Any third party reliance of our geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without
the expressed written consent of GFA International. Any third party reliance of our
geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without the expressedwritten consent
of GFA International. The applicable SPT methodology (ASTM D-1586), CPT methodology
(ASTM D-3441), and Auger Boring methodology (ASMT D-1452) used in i performing our
borings/soundings and for determining penetration resistance is specific to the sampling tools
utilized and does not reflect the ease or difficulty to advance other tool8l, equipment or
materials.
GP
Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning June 22, 2015
Rio Citrus Page 6
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a
continued association. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or
comments, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
�gganuBaeej
Resp,ly'd
GF00a }e9e3
'�SQiNFRAWNC.
IF rtificat Toler. P.E�'� Da /Alker
Sentgd tJechnjcat g7neer Project Manager
Florid &%96s raiio60675
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Test Location Plan
Auger Boring Logs (4)
Notes Related to Test Borings
Copies: Client (2)
GFP
1
,g a ij3,2
f r
` ', 3 •ggam � -� `E� ���
Ile—
- " ....
�' sq�gleR
�yy rri3gcry,Uate_ 1716M44 lat 27.170427" Ion-E0897155 de19 ft eye alt 1173 ft C.
Test Location Plan: Rio Citrus, NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd, St. Lucie County, FL
1 7I
RWCCC/It
xmerm
�Y.nµaOi-
•..
�91nY✓
ZW1LIVx
��Y (!:-f�Y.-]' 1`: 'i �7'�i(`, .�I
I
uaM94L _ -•ww:r ��ao.
B�.ePbh,A:
W
BM1 YIIp11N.p0i..
h
t
W.
_� ....,..•_..
i I
I
Lam, sn. \ eb.�w�w mow_ _\_ ne9r!._
:
K
t
J11I
s
qqll
�.„�'�--w
" IA
I
IMnw\tee uoao / BirJemic-\_
;I I
r r
•••, �`•• aF.WMM CAWLG-M
RM .611 u Rd3 aE3plJb�3uoa
-� Approximate Auger Boring (AB) Locations
PEMA.PboO SgwMonw,bn�
&23015
mt. ! .Sior I988' 5
AUGER BORING LOGS WITH HAND CONE PENETROMETER (HCP) TESTS
Client: Florida Fruit Association Project No: 15-1194.00
Project: Rio Citrus Lab No:
NE Corner of Kings Hwy $ Angle Rd, St. Lucie County, FL Test Date: 6/8/2015
Elevation: Existing Grade Technician: WN/JB
TEST LOCATION: AB-1 N27.471350 W80.396090
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0-1
Brown fine sand, little clay SP-SC)
1
80+
1 - 1Y:
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay SM,SC)
2
80+
1Yz - 2
Light gray fine sand SP
3
80+
2 - 4
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay, trace shell SM,SC
4
80+
4-7
Brown fine sand, little silt and clay and shell SP
5
80+
7-9
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay, little shell SM,SC
6
70
9-10
Gray fine sand, some silt, trace shell SM
7
60
8
60
9
50
10
50
Water table at 7 feet below ground surface after 24 hours
TEST LOCATION: AB-2 N27.471180 W80.396350
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0-2
Grayish brown fine sand SP
1
60
2-4
Brown fine sand, little silt and clay SP-SM,SP-SC
2
80+
4-7
Light gray fine sand, little silt and clay SP
3
80+
7 -10
Gray fine sand, some silt SM
4
80+
5
80+
6
80
7
70
8
60
9
50
10
40
Water table at 6% feet below ground surface after 24 hours
s` ' n e iaaa -'
I AUGER BORING LOGS WITH HAND CONE PENETROMETER (HCP) TESTS
Client: Florida Fruit Association Project No:
Project: Rio Citrus Lab No:
NE Comer of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd, St. Lucie County, FL Test Date:
Elevation: Existing Grade Technician:
15-1194.00
6/8/2015
WN/JB
TEST LOCATION: AB — 3 N27.470830 W80.39617°
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0-2
Brown fine sand SP
1
80+
2-3
Light gray fine sand SP
2
80+
3-7
Brown fine sand, some silt and clay SM,SC)
3
60
7 - 8Yz
Gray fine sand, little silt and clay SP-SM,SP-SC
4
60
8%z -10
Gray fine sand, trace/little silt and clay SP,SP-SM,SP-SC
5
60
6
60
7
60
8
80+
9
70
10
60
Water table at 7 feet below round surface after 24 hours
TEST LOCATION: AB-4 N27.470460 W80.396300
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0 - 1'/z
Dark gray fine sand, little root SP
1
80+
1'/z - 2%z
Light brown fine sand SP
2
80+
2'% - 7
Light brown fine sand, little silt and clay SP-SM,SP-SC
3
80+
7-9_
Gray fine sand, trace silt and clay, trace shell SP
4
80+
9-10
Brown fine sand, little silt, trace cemented sand SP-SM
5
70
6
60
7
50
8
50
9
50
10
40
Water table at 6'/4 feet below ground surface after 24 hours
NOTES RELATED TO
RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded (if shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on
the date indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are common; consult report text for a discussion.
2. The boring location was identified in the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape
and survey wheel.
3. The borehole was backfrlled to site grade following boring completion, and patched with asphalt cold patch mix
when pavement was encountered.
4. The Record of Test Boring represents our interpretation of field conditions based on engineering examination of
the soil samples.
5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations, conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report
text
6. "Field Test Data" shown on the Record of Test Boring indicated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and means I I hammer blows drove the sampler 6 inches. SPT uses a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
7. The N-value from the SPT is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6-
inch increments.
8. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and may vary fmm those
shown. The soil/rock conditions shown on the Records of Test Boring refer to conditions at the specific location
tested; soil/rock conditions may.vary between test locations.
9. Relative density for sands/gravels and consistency for silts/clays are described as follows:
SPT
CPT
SANDS/GRAVELS
SPT
CPT
SILTS/CLAYS
BLOWS/FOOT
KG91CW
RELATIVE DENSITY
BLOWS/FOOT
KG/CM'
CONSISTENCY
04
0-16
Very loose
0-1
0-3
Very soft
5-10
17-40
Loose
2.4
4-6
Soft
11-30
41-120
Medium Dense
5-8
7-12
Firm
31-50
121-200
Dense
9-15
13-25
Stiff
50+
over200
Very Dense
16-30
25-50
Very stiff
>30
>50
Hard
10. Grain size descriptions are as follows:
NAME
SIZE LIMITS
Boulder
12 Inches or more
Cobbles
3 to 12 Inches
Coarse Gravel
r/. to 3 Inches
Fine Gravel
No. 4 sieve to Y. inch
Coarse Sand
No. 10 to No. 4 sieve
Medium Sand
No. 40 to No. 10 sieve
Fine Sand
No. 200 to No. 40 sieve
Fines
Smaller than No. 200 sieve
11. Definitions related to adjectives used in soil/rock descriptions:
PROPORTION
ADJECTIVE
APPROXIMATE ROOT DIAMETER
ADJECTIVE
<5%
Trace
Less than 1/32"
Fine roots
5%to 12%
Little
1/32" to Y."
Small roots
12% to 30%
Some
W, to 1"
Medium roots
30% to 50%
And
Greater than l"
Lai a mots
Organic Soils: Soils containing vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition that has a fibrous to amorphous texture,
usually a dark brown to black color, and an organic odor.
Organic Content <25%: Slightly to Highly Organic; 25% to 75%: Muck; >75%: Peat
GfP
Florida's Leading Engineering Source
Environmental -Geotechnical • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold and Special Inspections • Plan Review & Code Compliance
Florida Fruit Association
Attention: Mr. Leo George
716 20th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32962
FEB 1 2 RECD
June 22, 2015
SCANNED
St Luca COuntY
Subject: Geotechnical Services for Stormwater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
Dear Mr. George:
We are pleased to submit this geotechnical report for the referenced project. This letter
describes the project, field explorations, results of testing, findings, and information from
outside references. The scope of services was completed in accordance with our
Geotechnical Engineering Proposal (15-1194.00) dated June 1, 2015, planned in conjunction
with and authorized by you.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on a site plan prepared by Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated 5/28/2015 (reproduced as the
Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of expanding an
existing stormwater retention system. Based on a topographic survey prepared by Masteller
& Moler, Inc. dated 5118/2015, the elevation at the existing retention area is about +16 to +17
feet NGVD and the expansion area about +17 to +18 feet NGVD (note: NGVD assumed,
datum line not indicated).
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
The subsurface conditions at location of the stormwater retention area were explored on June
8, 2015, with four Auger borings. The auger borings were performed in general accordance
with ASTM D 1452, "Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings". Hand
Cone Penetrometer-(HCP) tests were conducted at one -foot intervals in one of the auger
borings. The HCP test, in conjunction with information about the soil type, is empirically
correlated to the relative density of subsurface soils.
Y .
y jf R 1�
y xo Ls fME I
4i
521 NW Enterprise Drive • Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 • (772) 924.3575 • (772) 9243580 (fax) • www.teamgfa.com
OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA
Geotechnical Services for Sto.°..rwater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
June 22, 2015
Page 2
The borings were completed at the approximate locations noted on the Test Location Plan.
The boring logs are attached. The depths on the boring logs are below the existing ground
surface at the time the borings were performed. GPS coordinates obtained at boring locations
are noted on logs.
In addition to the present exploration, our firm performed a geotechnical exploration for the
proposed building. The results are presented in the GFA Engineering Report No. 1194.00.
FINDINGS
The project site was an operating agricultural facility. The grade at the site appeared to
generally match that from the topographic survey. A one and two-story structure occupied the
site. One and two-story structures were located adjacent to the property to the west. The
Belcher Canal bordered the south side of the property.
The subsurface soils encountered in the borings generally consisted of fine sand (SP) with
silty and clayey layers (SP-SM,SP-SC,SM,SC) to the boring termination depths of 10 feet.
The HCP values generally indicated that the soils were medium dense from the ground
surface to the bottom of the borings at depths of 10 feet.
Ground water was encountered at depths of 6'/o and 7 feet below existing grade at the boring
locations. The groundwater was measured about 24 hours after drilling.
LABORATORY TESTS
Laboratory permeability tests were run on six (6) selected samples from the borings. The
samples were compacted in the permeameter mold to densities that approximated the
existing field conditions. After saturating the samples, falling head permeability tests with an
initial head of 1'/z feet were performed. We consider the test results present a good order of
magnitude approximation of the in situ permeabilities. The results are as follows:
GP
Geotechnical Services for Sto,,,,..ater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
June 22, 2015
Page 3
Sample
Dry
Coefficient of
Depth
Density
Permeability, k
Boring
(feet)
Sample Description Summary
(pcf)
cm/sec
ft/da
AB-1
4-7
Brown fine sand, little silt and
103.2
6.9 x 10-4
2.0
clay and shell SP
AB-2
2-4
Brown fine sand, little silt and
107.6
< 1.0 x 10-5
< 0.01
clay SP-SM,SP-SC
AB-2
4-7
Light gray fine sand, little silt
104.1
5.5 x 10-4
1.6
and clay (SP)
AB-3
3-7
Brown fine sand, some silt and
104.2
< 1.0 x 10-5
< 0.01
clay SM,SC
AB-3
7 - 8'h
Gray fine sand, little silt and
105.4
5.1 x 10 5
0.1
clay(SP-SM,SP-SC)
AB-4
2'/2 - 7
Light brown fine sand, little silt
98.9
3.5 x 10�
1.0
and claySP-SM,SP-SC)
*The vertical permeabilites provided should be multiplied by 2 to obtain horizontal
permeability values.
Most naturally occurring soils and many man -placed soils are anisotropic soils, which means
they have greater horizontal permeabilities than vertical permeabilities, as well as greater
horizontal hydraulic conductivities than vertical hydraulic conductivities. Based on the
literature and our experience with these types of soil, we recommend using a horizontal
permeability value that is twice the vertical permeabilities reported above.
USGS TOPOGRAPHICAL AND USDA SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION
We reviewed the USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle topographic map of the area, entitled
Ft. Pierce NW. Revisions to this map were based on aerial photographs taken in 1983. The
USGS map showed the project site is located on a broad area with an elevation between 15
and 20 feet NGVD. The Belcher Canal borders the south side of the property.
The site is shown on sheet number 9 of the Soil Survey of the St. Lucie County Area, Florida,
issued by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture in March 1980. According to the Soil Survey, Winder
sand, depressional (54) occur at the site.
The soil survey describes Winder sand, depressional (54) as poorly drained, nearly level soil
in depressional areas. The profile consists of fine sand with trace/little silt (SP,SP-SM)(A-3)
from the surface to a depth of Y4 feet, fine sand with little/some silt and clay (SM-SC,SC)(A-2-
4,A-2-6) from 3/ to 5'% feet, and then sand with trace to some silt (SP,SP-SM,SM)(A-3,A-2-4)
to a depth of 6% feet. With unimproved drainage, it is ponded for 6 to 9 months or more
annually. The scattered low ridges are covered with water for a few days to about 3 months.
The water table is within a depth of 40 inches for most of the rest of the year. Only for short
periods in dry seasons is the water table below a depth of 40 inches. This soil is not ponded
in drainage districts or in other areas that have water control systems. Permeability is rapid in
the surface and subsurface layers, slow to very slow in the subsoil, and moderate to rapid in
GP
Geotechnical Services for Sto[inwater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
June 22, 2015
Page 4
the substratum. The high water table is apparent and 2 feet above the ground surface to 1
foot below the ground surface.
It should be noted that the Soil Survey generally extends to a maximum depth of 80 inches
(approximately 63% feet) below ground surface and is not indicative of deeper soil conditions.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RAINFALL INFORMATION
According to the SFWMD web site the rainfall in Martin and St. Lucie Counties from June 1 to
June 8, 2015 was 0.79 inches (50% of normal for that time of month, normal monthly total for
all of June is 6.76 inches), for the month of May 2615 was 1.61 inches (43% of monthly
normal), for the month of April 2015 was 4.58 inches (161 % of monthly normal), for the month
of March 2015 was 1.49 inches (37% of monthly normal), for the month of February 2015
was 4.65 inches (185% of monthly normal), and the month of January 2015 was 1.24 inches
(59% of monthly normal). The 2014 total rainfall was 55.54 inches (103% of normal), 2013
total rainfall was 51.34 inches (95% of normal), and the 2012 total rainfall was 51.21 inches
(94% of normal).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The subsurface soils encountered in the auger boring corresponded well with the information
presented in the Soil Survey. The recent rainfall history indicates that the observed water
table level should be below normal for this time of year. Drainage improvements in the vicinity
indicate the average wet season high water table should be below that stated in the Soil
Survey. The water level in the canal on the south side of the property will influence the water
table.
Based on the above data and the results of our field exploration, we estimate that the
average wet season high water table level is 4 feet below the ground surface at the boring
locations. However, should rainfall intensity and duration or total rainfall quantities exceed the
normally anticipated rainfall quantities, the groundwater level may exceed our estimate of the
average wet season high groundwater level.
The soil survey and the soil samples obtained from the borings indicate there are silty and
clayey layers with very low permeability. It should be noted for drainage system design that
the soil layer described by the soil survey and boring logs as sand with little/some silt/clay
has a low permeability. The Soil Survey generally gives the coefficient of permeability for this
material as -less than 0.4 feet per day (1.4 x 10-4 cm/sec). Based on our experience the
coefficient of permeability ranges from 0.01 to 0.1 feet per day (104 to 10-5 cm/sec) for these
low permeability soils. "Perching" of the ground water on top of these layers after rainfall
should be expected.
6fP
Geotechnical Services for Stommater Management Planning June 22, 2015
Rio Citrus Page 5
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
CLOSURE
This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners
and other members of the design team for the project. 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 information
and professional opinions as provided in this report. In the event changes are made in the
nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the evaluation and opinions contained
in this report shall not be considered valid, unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions
modified or verified in writing by GFA International.
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained
from the tests performed. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur
between borings. While the borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at their
respective locations and for their 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 soil logs is approximate and the description represents our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated boring locations on the particular
date drilled.
Any third party reliance of our geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without
the expressed written consent of GFA International. Any third party reliance of our
geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without the expressed written consent
of GFA International. The applicable SPT methodology (ASTM D-1586), CPT methodology
(ASTM D-3441), and Auger Boring methodology (ASMT D-1452) used in performing our
borings/soundings and for determining penetration resistance is specific to the sampling tools
utilized and does not reflect the ease or difficulty to advance other tools, equipment or
materials.
6fP
Geotechnical Services for Stounwater Management Planning
Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
June 22, 2015
Page 6
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a
continued association. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or
comments, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Dabrd Alker
Project Manager
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Test Location Plan
Auger Boring Logs (4)
Notes Related to Test Borings
Copies: Client (2)
GfP
•
r
�
'3 :pis 1 ff�
rE
tee•
4
IA
P
ti
..;..� 0 2016,,Soogle i
267 ft+
. k r
v
I �. I II
a=g
• n ,
� Imagery, Date Sl!2�5?994 4 lat• 27.470927° Ion -DO 397455° elev 19 keye alt 1173 ft. 0 -
6f� Test Location Plan: Rio Citrus, NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd, St. Lucie County, FL
SITE DATA
i t I Y n«°w.,,•,,,.,,,_,!, "Ppnaa ram, alto aewe a
.x . I mw.-.w sS: T s
' 1 *' (�.�-.--'• Tqx o
� d
m9` . ...: Y� _L*'°�D a •'+,-M 8" _ 'L° ,.e".' Yt . ��+.�':. G t.o-�;� a",{s "�}' �i:
z�
ar�'v.�Lv- ro4c.exa++t. tl
•9� x°Re'� . w•«` 'a'�, ^'°:* ¢'iµ`,:t` t�C'^ ^..t fr""I-@.11..�i�'`Y 5 +c s rek n,z Sariudd�
I r � I il I 5� bl bn
uaV' 4
ii x O r HII,
L Y r .+ , tY'*, G+. ;«;<-_•n-u«-- , k Sk. C�manaYmY ammb
,a-4 �'a . °set � ["+ L�} ,t,>�3,�ax�»•� �.�F ; .ea t! $ , x � �:: a�°� s ax"�S _ `ar= f IRx- F« I � i = ��S„`""+"'�`"� ` ^�'- --`�—' ,�9'" � '�`p
_
rt 77
y'. i, ° ° sm � ' L3 ,� P' ,,1' 4 j, t nv �� � r �t v-: = M . �1ga q.. , ��.� 4 �+ A'�
It ' I #
z
.1
"{M+p 3t,. '_ q Rt a£•.`„ Ikd=�,°9?' h (f `:.I ^p.. Y &tm eliAllQ 9Yk f 4t «?pp kx�sn a r s i11 aid ewr..aa.`�a+w. a w I m
. " Li .r
4 mow
.3 4k
w-31
u.., rra
B � k r R L k•'_1:X��L"dJ.Aht,-n.h.l.?„.��.;?..J.j.J � � P..ana cwaw�i kan �
+.wiro+Y +,emu wvm fEw, f'ge0 zaa Ntw tbn
sFwteD CANAL c zs i
JWbmOlbn 1 Pq.NkiNB A�4Nf�,„k j
s: .: : .v '.. °,C^� ., °°4vd': m w.^al.�ae °.._.
MINOR SITE PLAN _.
i..LNJ MASTELLER WMOLER INC, ' : .. �' a v a n*
Y m o 8 asa' •«= g, s' tw rx, y. a ke I
,>a � ianc��6���a��• att�?pr���oa � 61z�,b
- _ a -
¢EVISbtS �.. yam +m w.Gri+a+x.°ro+ aiu,:xA3tt+ grew. mzax�.+u+. 31EGHEN E. ttQ4LR. Pk, fG-&,39Fb3
Approximate Auger Boring (AB) Locations
Since'1988 L* .?
Florida's Leading Engineering Source
AUGER BORING LOGS WITH HAND CONE PENETROMETER (HCP) TESTS
Client: Florida Fruit Association
Project: Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd, St. Lucie County, FL
Elevation: Existing Grade
Project No:
Lab No:
Test Date:
Technician:
15-1194.00
6/8/2015
WN/JB
TEST LOCATION: AB — 1 N27.471350 W80.396090
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0-1
Brown fine sand, little clay SP-SC)
1
80+
1 - 1'/2
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay SM,SC)
2
80+
1'/2 -2
Light gray fine sand SP
3
80+
2-4
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay, trace shell SM,SC
4
80+
4-7
Brown fine sand, little silt and clay and shell SP
5
80+
7-9
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay, little shell SM,SC
6
70
9-10
Gray fine sand, some silt, trace shell SM
7
60
8
60
9
50
10
50
Water table at 7 feet below ground surface after 24 hours
TEST LOCATION: AB-2 N27.471180 W80.396350
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0-2
Grayish brown fine sand SP
1
60
2-4
Brown fine sand, little silt and clay SP-SM,SP-SC
2
80+
4-7
Light gray fine sand, little silt and clay SP
3
80+
7-10
Gray fine sand, some silt SM
4
80+
5
80+
6
80
7
70
8
60
9
50
10
40
Water table at 6'/4 feet below ground surface after 24 hours
5� ce'1988_�
Florida's Leading Engineering Source
AUGER BORING LOGS WITH HAND CONE PENETROMETER (HCP) TESTS
Client: Florida Fruit Association Project No: 15-1194.00
Project: Rio Citrus Lab No:
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd, St. Lucie County, FL Test Date: 6/8/2015
Elevation: Existing Grade Technician: WN/JB
TEST LOCATION: AB-3 N27.470830 W80.396170
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0-2
Brown fine sand SP
1
80+
2-3
Light gray fine sand SP
2
80+
3-7
Brown fine sand, some silt and clay SM,SC)
3
60
7 - 8'/2
Gray fine sand, little silt and clay SP-SM,SP-SC
4
60
8'/z - 10
Gray fine sand, trace/little silt and clay SP,SP-SM,SP-SC
5
60
6
60
7
60
8
80+
9
70
10
60
Water table at 7 feet below ground surface after 24 hours
TEST LOCATION: AB — 4 N27.47046° W80.39630°
HCP
Depth (feet)
Description (color, texture, consistency, remarks)
Depth
Reading
0 -1'/z
Dark gray fine sand, little root SP
1
80+
1% - 2'/:
Light brown fine sand SP
2
80+
2'/2 - 7
Light brown fine sand, little silt and clay SP-SM,SP-SC
3
80+
7-9
Gray fine sand, trace silt and clay, trace shell SP
4
80+
9-10
Brown fine sand, little silt, trace cemented sand SP-SM
5
70
6
60
7
50
8
50
9
50
10
40
Water table at 6% feet below ground surface after 24 hours
NOTES RELATED TO
RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded (if shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on
the date indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are common; consult report text for a discussion.
2. The boring location was identified in the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape
and survey wheel.
3. The borehole was backfilled to site grade following boring completion, and patched with asphalt cold patch mix
when pavement was encountered.
4. The Record of Test Boring represents our interpretation of field conditions based on engineering examination of
the soil samples.
5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations, conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report
text.
6. "Field Test Data" shown on the Record of Test Boring indicated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and means I 1 hammer blows drove the sampler 6 inches. SPT uses a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
7. The N-value from the SPT is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6-
inch increments.
8. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and may vary from those
shown. The soil/rock conditions shown on the Records of Test Boring refer to conditions at the specific location
tested; soillrock conditions may.vary between test locations.
9. Relative density for sands/gravels and consistency for silts/clays are described as follows:
SPT
CPT
SANDS/GRAVELS
SPT
CPT
SILTS/CLAYS
BLOWS/FOOT
KG/CM
RELATIVE DENSITY
BLOWS/FOOT
KG/CM
CONSISTENCY
0-4
0-16
Very loose
0-1
0-3
Very soft -
5-10
17-40
Loose
2-4
4-6
Soft
11-30
41-120
Medium Dense
5-8
7-12
Firm
31-50
121-200
Dense
9-15
13-25
Stiff
50+
over200
Very Dense
16-30
25-50
Very stiff
>30
>50
Hard
10. Grain size descriptions mew follows:
NAME
SIZE LIMITS
Boulder
12 Inches or more
Cobbles
3 to 12 Inches
Coarse Gravel
�/. to 3 Inches
Fine Gravel
No. 4 sieve to Y inch
Coarse Sand
No. 10 to No. 4 sieve
Medium Sand
No. 40 to No. 10 sieve
Fine Sand
No. 200 to No. 40 sieve
Fines
Smaller than No. 200 sieve
11. Definitions related to adjectives used in soil/rock descriptions:
PROPORTION
ADJECTIVE
APPROXIMATE ROOT DIAMETER
ADJECTIVE
<5%
Trace
Less than 1/32"
Fine roots
5%to 12%
Little
1/32" to Y"
Small roots
12% to 30%
Some
%" to V
Medium roots
30% to 50%
And
Greater than 1"
Large roots
Organic Soils: Soils containing vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition that has a fibrous to amorphous texture,
usually a dark brown to black color, and an organic odor.
Organic Content <25%: Slightly to Highly Organic; 25% to 75%: Muck; >75%: Peat
cr
,I
GFA INTERNATIONAL
FLORIDA'S LEADING ENGINEERING SOURCE
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd
St. Lucie County, Florida SCANNED
BY
June 19, 2015
L`�� St. Lucie County
CORYA Project No.: 15-1194.00
For: Florida Fruit Association
.�
(DEOVE
FEB 1 2 AEC'D
Florida's Leading Engineering Source
Environmental • Geotechnical • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold and Special Inspections • Plan Review & Code Compliance
June 19, 2015
Florida Fruit Association
Attention: Leo George
716 20th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32962
Site: Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project # 15-1194.00
Dear Mr. George
GFA International, Inc. (GFA) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering evaluation for the above -referenced project in accordance with the geotechnical
and engineering service agreement for this project. The scope of services was completed in
accordance with our Geotechnical Engineering Proposal (15-1194.00) dated June 1, 2015,
planned in conjunction with and authorized by you.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of our subsurface exploration was to classify the nature of the subsurface soils and
general geomorphic conditions and evaluate their impact upon the proposed construction. This
report contains the results of our subsurface exploration at the site and our engineering
interpretations of these, with respect to the project characteristics described to us including
providing recommendations for site preparation and the design of the foundation system.
Based on a site plan prepared by Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated 5/28/2015 (reproduced in
Appendix B - Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of
constructing a 1-story storage building. 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 50 kips and the maximum wall loading will be 4 kips per linear
foot. GFA estimates the site is at or near final grade.
The recommendations provided herein are based upon the above considerations. If the project
description has been revised, please inform GFA International so that we may review our
recommendations with respect to any modifications.
A total of two (2) standard penetration test (SPT) borings to depths of approximately twenty (20)
feet below ground surface (BGS) were completed for this study.
The subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site generally consist of medium dense sand
(SP) to silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC,SM,SC) to a depth of 6'Y2 feet, and then loose to
medium dense sand (SP) to slightly silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC) to the boring and probe
termination depths. Please refer to Appendix D - Record of Test Borings for a detailed account
of each.boring.
521 NW Enterprise Drive • Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 • (772) 924.3575 • (772) 924.3580
OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA
Proposed 1-Story Storage bunu"ing at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194,00
Geotechnical Report
June 19, 2015
Page 2 of 9
The subsurface soil conditions at the project site are generally favorable for the support of the
proposed structure on shallow foundations. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be
used for foundation design.
The subgrade soils should be improved with compaction from the stripped grade prior to
constructing the foundation pads. The top 2 feet below stripped grade should be compacted to
a minimum of 95% density prior to placing fill to achieve final grade. Fill (including stemwall
backfill) should be placed in 12-inch lifts and compacted to achieve a minimum 95% density.
After excavation for footings, the subgrade to a depth of 2 feet below bottom of footings should
be compacted to achieve a minimum 95% density.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a
continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or
comments, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Number 4930
Copies: 2, Addressee
Da id Alker
Project Coordinator
Gf�
Proposed 1-Story Storage Gu,u;ng at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 3 of 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
1.1 Scope of Services............................................................................................................4
1.2 Project Description...........................................................................................................4
2.0 OBSERVATIONS.................................................................................................................4
2.1 Site Inspection.................................................................................................................4
2.2 Field Exploration..............................................................................................................5
2.3 Laboratory Analysis..........................................................................................................5
2.4 Geomorphic Conditions....................................................................................................5
2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions..............................................................................................6
3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................6
3.1 General............................................................................................................................6
3.2 Site Preparation...............................................................................................................6
3.3 Design of Footings...........................................................................................................8
3.4 Ground Floor Slabs..........................................................................................................8
4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................8
5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................9
Appendix A - Vicinity Map
Appendix B - Test Location Plan
Appendix C - Notes Related to Borings
Appendix D - Record of Test Borings
Appendix E - Discussion of Soil Groups
6FP
Proposed 1-Story Storage ounding at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 4 of 9
1.0 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
geotechnical significance for building construction. The following scope of services is provided
within this report:
1. Prepare records of the soil boring logs depicting the subsurface soil conditions encountered
during our field exploration.
2. Conduct a review of each soil sample obtained during our field exploration for classification
and additional testing if necessary.
3. Analyze the existing soil conditions found during our exploration with respect to foundation
support for the proposed structure.
4. Provide recommendations with respect to foundation support of the structure, including
allowable soil -bearing capacity, bearing elevations, and foundation design parameters.
5. Provide criteria and site preparation procedures to prepare the site for the proposed
construction.
1.2 Project Description
Based on a site plan prepared by Masteller & Molar, Inc. dated 5/28/2015 (reproduced in
Appendix B - Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of
constructing a 1-story storage building. 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 50 kips and the maximum wall loading will be 4 kips per linear
foot. GFA estimates the site is at or near final grade.
The recommendations provided herein are based upon the above considerations. If the project
description has been revised, please inform GFA International so that we may review our
recommendations with respect to any modifications.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS
2.1 Site Inspection
The project site was generally uneven with a grade change of about 2 feet across the site. The
site was an operating agricultural facility. The grade was generally even with the adjacent road
at the time of drilling. Several buildings and structures occupied the site.
GfH
-v I --
Proposed 1-Story Storage bunuing at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 5 of 9
2.2 Field Exploration
A total of two (2) standard penetration test (SPT) borings to depths of approximately twenty (20)
feet below ground surface (BGS) were completed for this study. The locations of the borings
performed are illustrated in Appendix B: "Test Location Plan". The Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) method was used as the investigative tools within the borings. SPT tests were performed
in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586, `Penetration Test and Split -Barrel
Sampling of Soils". The SPT test procedure consists of driving a 1.4-inch I.D. split -tube sampler
into the soil profile using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows per foot,
for the second and third 6-inch increment, is an indication of soil strength.
The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were visually classified and their stratification
is illustrated in Appendix D: 'Record of Test Borings". It should be noted that soil conditions
might vary between the strata interfaces, which are shown. The soil boring data reflect
information from a specific test location only. Site specific survey staking for the test locations
was not provided for our field exploration. The indicated depth and location of each test was
approximated based upon existing grade and estimated distances and relationships to obvious
landmarks. The boring depths were confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the
proposed construction and knowledge of vicinity soils.
2.3 Laboratory Analysis
Soil samples recovered from our field exploration were returned to our laboratory where they
were visually examined in general accordance with ASTM D-2488. Samples were evaluated to
obtain an accurate understanding of the soil properties and site geomorphic conditions. After a
thorough visual examination of the recovered site soils, no laboratory testing was deemed
necessary. Bag samples of the soil encountered during our field exploration will be held in our
laboratory for your inspection for 30 days and then discarded unless we are notified otherwise in
writing.
The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical
composition or environmental hazards. GFA would be pleased to perform these services for an
additional fee, if required.
2.4 Geomorphic Conditions
The geology of the site as mapped on the USDA Soil Survey website consists of Winder loamy
sand (55). These are sandy and clayey soils and organic soils are not indicated. It should
be noted that the Soil Survey generally extends to a maximum depth of 80 inches
(approximately 6% feet) below ground surface and is not indicative of deeper soil conditions.
Boring logs derived from our field exploration are presented in Appendix D: 'Record of Test
Borings". The boring logs depict the observed soils in graphic detail. The Standard Penetration
Test borings indicate the penetration resistance, or N-values, during the drilling and sampling
activities. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon
Visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. All soil samples reviewed have been
depicted and classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
modified as necessary to describe typical Florida conditions. See Appendix E: "Discussion of
Soil Groups", for a detailed description of various soil groups.
Grb
Proposed 1-Story Storage outiding at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
Geotechnical Report
June 19, 2015
Page 6 of 9
The subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site generally consist of medium dense sand
(SP) to silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC,SM,SC) to a depth of 6%2 feet, and then loose to
medium dense sand (SP) to slightly silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC) to the boring and probe
termination depths. Please refer to Appendix D - Record of Test Borings for a detailed account
of each boring.
2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions
On the dates of our field exploration, the groundwater table was not encountered within a depth
ranging of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater table will fluctuate
seasonally depending upon local rainfall and other site specific and/or local influences. Brief
ponding of stormwater may occur across the site after heavy rains.
No additional investigation was included in our scope of work in relation to the wet seasonal
high groundwater table or any existing well fields in the vicinity. Well fields may influence water
table levels and cause significant fluctuations. If a more comprehensive water table analysis is
necessary, please contact our office for additional guidance.
3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General
A foundation system for any structure must be designed to resist bearing capacity failures, have
settlements that are tolerable, and resist the environmental forces that the foundation may be
subjected to over the life of the structure. The soil bearing capacity is the soil's ability to support
loads without plunging into the soil profile. Bearing capacity failures are analogous to shear
failures in structural design and are usually sudden and catastrophic.
The amount of settlement that a structure may tolerate is dependent on several factors
including: uniformity of settlement, time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties
of the materials. Generally, total or uniform settlement does not damage a structure but may
affect drainage and utility connections. These can generally tolerate movements of several
inches for building construction. In contrast, differential settlement affects a structure's frame
and is limited by the structural flexibility.
The subsurface soil conditions at the project site are generally favorable for the support of the
proposed structure on shallow foundations. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be
used for foundation design. Expected settlement of the structure is 1 inch or less total and less
than inch differential.
3.2 Site Preparation
GFA recommends the following compaction requirements for this project:
➢ Proof Roll .........................................
............................. 95% of a Modified Proctor
➢ Building Pad Fill............................................................95%
of a Modified Proctor
➢ Footings........................................................................95%
of a Modified Proctor
GF
Proposed 1-Story Storage ouoding at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
Geotechnical Report
June 19, 2015
Page 7 of 9
The compaction percentages presented above are based upon the maximum dry density as
determined by a "modified proctor" test (ASTM D-1557). All density tests should be
performed to a depth of 2 feet below stripped surface and below bottom of footings. All
density tests should be performed using the nuclear method (ASTM D-2922), the sand cone
method (ASTM D-1556), or Hand Cone Penetrometer (HCP) tests.
Our recommendations for preparation of the site for use of shallow foundation systems are
presented below. This approach to improving and maintaining the site soils has been found to
be successful on projects with similar soil conditions.
Initial site preparation should consist of performing stripping (removing surface vegetation,
near surface roots, and other deleterious matter) and clearing operations. This should be
done within, and to a distance of five (5) feet beyond, the perimeter of the proposed building
footprint (including exterior isolated columns). Foundations and any below grade remains of
any structures that are within the footprint of the new construction should be removed, and
utility lines should be removed or properly abandoned so as to not affect structures.
2. Following site stripping and prior the placement of any fill, areas of surficial sand (not
exposed limestone) should be compacted ("proof rolled") and tested. 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 rolled
surface at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet, or a minimum of three
(3) tests, whichever is greater. Areas of exposed intact limestone shall be visually confirmed
by the project geotechnical engineer prior to fill placement, in lieu of proof rolling.
3. Fill material may then be placed in the building pad as required. The fill material should be
inorganic (classified as SP, SW, GP, GW, SP-SM, SW-SM, GW-GP, GP -GM) containing not
more than 5 percent (by weight) organic materials. Fill materials with silt/clay-size soil
fines in excess of 12% should not be used. Fill should be placed in lifts with a maximum
lift thickness not exceeding 12-inches. Each lift should be compacted and tested prior to the
placement of the next lift. Density tests should be performed within the fill at a frequency of
not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or a minimum of
three (3) tests per lift, whichever is greater.
-4. For any footings bearing on a limestone formation, -the bottom of all footing excavation shall
be examined by the engineer / geologist or his representative to determine the condition of
the limestone. The limestone shall be probed for voids and loose pockets of sand. Such
areas shall be cleaned to depth of 3 times the greatest horizontal dimension and backfilled
with lean concrete.
5. For footings placed on structural fill or compacted native granular soils, the bottom of all
footings shall be tested for compaction and examined by the engineer / geologist or his
representative to determine if the soil is free of organic and/or deleterious material. Density
tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than one (1) density test per each
isolated column footing and one (1) test per each seventy five (75) lineal feet of wall
footings.
GFH
Proposed 1-Story Storage bunufng at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
Geotechnical Report
June 19, 2015
Page 8 of 9
6. The contractor should take into account the final contours and grades as established by the
plan when executing his backfilling and compaction operations.
Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We
recommend that you monitor nearby structures before and during proof -compaction operations.
A representative of GFA International can monitor the vibration disturbance of adjacent
structures. A proposal for vibration monitoring during compaction operations can be supplied
upon request.
3.3 Design of Footings
Footings may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Shallow
foundations should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below final grade. This embedment
shall be measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated column footings should be at least
24 inches in width and continuous strip footings should have a width of at least 18 inches
regardless of contact pressure.
Once site preparation has been performed in accordance with the recommendations described
in this report, the soil should readily support the proposed structure resting on a shallow
foundation system. Settlements have been projected to be less than 1-inch total and '/2-inch
differential. All footings and columns should be structurally separated from the floor slab, as
they will be loaded differently and at different times, unless a monolithic mat foundation is
designed.
3.4 Ground Floor Slabs
The ground floor slabs may be supported directly on the existing grade or on granular fill
following the foundation site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report.
For purposes of design, a coefficient of subgrade modulus 150 pounds per cubic inch may be
used. The ground floor slab should be structurally separated from all walls and columns to
allow for differential vertical movement unless a monolithic foundation is used.
Excessive moisture vapor transmission through floor slabs -on -grade can result in damage to
floor coverings as well as cause other deleterious affects. An appropriate moisture vapor
retarder should be placed beneath the floor slab to reduce moisture vapor from entering the
building through the slab. The retarder should be installed in general accordance with
applicable ASTM procedures including sealing around pipe penetrations and at the edges of
foundations.
4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners and
other members of the design team for the Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus, 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
GFP
Proposed 1-Story Storage buouing at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 9 of 9
not become evident until the time of construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be
necessary to reevaluate information and professional opinions as provided in this report. In the
event changes are made in the nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the
evaluation and opinions contained in this report shall not be considered valid, unless the
changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by GFA International.
5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained
from the tests performed at the locations indicated on the attached figure in Appendix B. This
report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings. While the borings are
representative of the subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their 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 soil logs is approximate
and the description represents our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated
boring locations on the particular date drilled.
Any third party reliance of our geotechnical report
the expressed written consent of GFA Internatiom
D-1586), CPT methodology (ASTM D-3441), and
used in performing our borings and sounding,
resistance is specific to the sampling tools utilized
advance other tools or materials.
or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without
il. The applicable SPT methodology (ASTM
Auger Boring methodology (ASTM D-1452)
and for determining penetration and cone
and does not reflect the ease or difficulty to
GfH
Appendix A - Vicinity Map
GF
e
.5 °1
H A
5 }
v
t
-4i
x
�u� (tr�
vwA+'`�.u�+v��+..rv� •T�e. .+R--�`.
nA' 'Xsr'w.s.. `.��.�..
_ f
y
W .An.g1e Rd
to
a ®2075 Googie
'
(
Coosl( ea ri
.. IU�egery'Date:�992,St� 11af 27:470427° Ion -80.397455°yelev 19R
eyeal( 1173ftQ
Appendix IS - Test Location Plan
GFP
Test Location Plan: Proposed 1-Story Building at Rio Citrus, St. Lucie County, FL
-Approximate Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Boring Locations
Appendix C - Notes Related to Borings
GFH
NOTES RELATED TO
RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded (if shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on
the date indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are common; consult report text for a discussion.
2. The boring location was identified in the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape
and survey wheel.
3. The borehole was backfilled to site grade following boring completion, and patched with asphalt cold patch mix
when pavement was encountered.
4. The Record of Test Boring represents our interpretation of field conditions based on engineering examination of
the soil samples.
5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations, conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report
text.
6. "Field Test Data" shown on the Record of Test Boring indicated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and means 11 hammer blows drove the sampler 6 inches. SPT uses a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
7. The N-value from the SPT is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6-
inch increments.
8. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and may vary from those
shown. The soil/rock conditions shown on the Records of Test Boring refer to conditions at the specific location
tested; soil/rock conditions may vary between test locations.
9. Relative density for sands/gravels and consistency for silts/clays are described as follows:
SPT
CPT
SANDS/GRAVELS
SPT
CPT
SILTS/CLAYS
BLOWS/FOOT
KG/CM
RELATIVE DENSITY
BLOWSIFOOT
KG/CM'
CONSISTENCY
0-4
0-16
Very loose
0-1
0-3
Very soft
5-10
17-40
Loose
2-4
4-6
Soft
11-30
41-120
Medium Dense
5-8
7-12
Finn
31-50
121-200
Dense
9-15
13-25
stiff
50+
over 200
Very Dense
16-30
25-50
Very stiff
>30
>50
Hard
10. Grain size descriptions are as follows:
NAME
SIZE LIMITS
Boulder
12 Inches or more
Cobbles
3 to 12 Inches
Coarse Gravel
�/. to 3 Inches
Fine Gravel
No. 4 sieve to'/. inch
Coarse Sand
No. 10 to No. 4 sieve
Medium Sand
No. 40 to No. 10 sieve
Fine Sand
No. 200 to No. 40 sieve
Fines
I Smaller than No. 200 sieve
11. Definitions related to adjectives used in soil/rock descriptions:
PROPORTION
ADJECTIVE
APPROXIMATE ROOT DIAMETER
ADJECTIVE
<5%
Trace
Less than 1/32"
Fine roots
5%to 12%
Little
1/3211to'/<"
Small roots
12%to 30%
Some
Y" to 1"
Medium roots
30%to 50%
And
Greater than 1"
Large roots
Organic Soils: Soils containing vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition that has a fibrous to amorphous texture,
usually a dark brown to black color, and an organic odor.
Organic Content <25%: Slightly to Highly Organic; 25% to 75%: Muck; >75%: Peat
60
Appendix D - Record of Test Borings
GfP
GFA INTERNATIONAL
521 N.W. ENTERPRISE DRIVE, PORT ST. Lucm, FLORIDA 34986
PHONE: (772) 924-3575 - FAx: (772) 924-3580
I STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING (ASTM D-1586) I
Client: Florida Fruit Association
Project: Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, FL
Elevation: Existing Grade
Water Level: not encountered within 10 feet Drilling Fluid commenced at depth of 10 feet
Project No.:15-1194.00
Lab No.:
Page:
1 of 1
Date:
6/8/2015
Drill Rig:
Simco-24
Field Party:
WNUB
TEST LOCATION: SPT - 1 N27.47113° W80.39717°
Laboratory Tests
Depth
Blows/
N
Sample
Layer:
USCS
Description
Passing
Moisture
Organic
(feet)
6 in.
Value
No.
Front/to
No. 200
Content
Content
0
1
0 - 2%2
SP
Brown fine sand, trace silt and clay
---
7
10
1
2
--11........
10
10
2%2 - 4%2
SP
Gray fine sand, trace clay
3
12
22
2
'-- 4
15........
10
Jl5.
4%2 - 6Y2
SP-SM,
Brown fine sand, little silt and cla)
5
11
26
3
SP-SC
6
-A........
13
7
14
6/2 - 13 /2
SP-SM,
Gray fine sand, little silt and clay
15
29
4
SP-SC
8
-A--
------
8
q
...42 ..
.. ..
�
5
3
11
-------
------
12
.............
13
.............
6
13%2 - 18%2
SP
Gray to brown fine sand
7
8
15
6
16
-------
------
17
.............
L19
5-...-..--
6
7
13
1 7
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
GFA INTERNATIONAL
521 N.W. ENTERPRISE DRIVE, PORT ST. LuclE, FLORIDA 34986
PHONE: (772) 924-3575 - FAX: (772) 924-3580
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING (ASTM D-1586)
Client: Florida Fruit Association Project No.:15-1194.00
Lab No.:
Project: Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, FL
Elevation: Existing Grade
Page:
1 of 1
Date:
6/8/2015
Drill Rig:
Simco-24
Water Level: not encountered within 10 feet Drilling Fluid commenced at depth of 10 feet Field Party: WNUB
TEST LOCATION: SPT - 2 N27.47090° W80.39719°
Laboratory Tests
Depth
Blows/
N
Sample
Layer:
USCS
Description
Moisture
Organic
(feet)
6in.
Value
No.
From/to
No.
No. 200
Content
Content
0
1
0-2
SP
Gray fine sand
1
3
8
11
1
7
2-4
SM,SC
Gray fine sand, some silt and clay
8
3
.. L....-..
10
17
2
'- 4
-.11--
------
4 - 6%2
SP-SM,
Gray fine sand, little silt and clay
9
5
..6.........
SP-SC
9
15
3
6
.. $---
------
6
7
6
6%2 - 18V2
SP-SM,
Light gray fine sand, little silt and clay
7
13
4
SP-SC
6
_
6
7
9
.............
6
13
5
II
.............
12
.............
13
.............
3
4
7
6
16
.............
17
.............
2
18%2 - 20
SP
Gray fine sand, trace silt
i9
2
--•
2
4
7
Boring Terminated at 20 feet
Appendix E - Discussion of Soil Groups
GfP
DISCUSSION OF SOIL GROUPS
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
GW and SW GROUPS. These groups comprise well -graded gravelly and sandy
soils having little or no plastic fines (less than percent passing the No. 200 sieve).
The presence of the fines must not noticeably change the strength characteristics
of the coarse -grained friction and must not interface with it's free -draining
characteristics.
GP and SP GROUPS. Poorly graded gravels and sands containing little of no
plastic fines (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) are classed in GP
and SP groups. The materials may be called uniform gravels, uniform sands or
non -uniform mixtures of very coarse materials and very fine sand, with
intermediate sizes lacking (sometimes called skip -graded, gap graded or step -
graded). This last group often results from borrow pit excavation in which gravel
and sand layers are mixed.
GM and SM GROUPS.- In general, the GM and SM groups comprise gravels or
sands with fines (more than 12 percent the No. 200 sieve) having low or no
plasticity. The plasticity index and liquid limit of soils in the group should 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 are included.
GC and SC GROUPS. In general, the GC and SC groups comprise gravelly or
sandy soils with fines (more than 12 percent passing the No, 200 sieve) which
have a fairly high plasticity. The liquid limit and plasticity index should plat above
the "A" line on the plasticity chart.
FINE GRAINED SOILS
ML and MH GROUPS. In these groups, the symbol M has been used to
designate predominantly silty material. The symbols L and H represent low and
high liquid limits, respectively, and an arbitrary dividing line between the two set
at a liquid limit of 50. The soils in the ML and MH groups are sandy silts, clayey
silts or inorganic silts with relatively low plasticity. Also included are loose type
soils and rock flours.
CL and CH GROUPS. In these groups the symbol C stands for clay, with L and
H denoting low or high liquid limits, with the dividing line again set at a liquid of
50. The soils are primarily organic clays. Low plasticity clays are classified as
CL and are usually lean clays, sandy clays or silty clays. The medium and high
plasticity clays are classified as CH. These include the fat clays, gumbo clays
and some volcanic clays.
GfP
OL and OH GROUPS. The soil in the OL and OH groups are characterized by
the presence of organic odor or color, hence the symbol O. Organic silts and
clays are classified in these groups. The materials have a plasticity range that
corresponds with the ML and MH groups.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
The highly organic soils are usually very soft and compressible and have
undesirable construction characteristics. Particles of leaves, grasses, branches,
or other fibrous vegetable matter are common components of these soils. They
are not subdivided and are classified into one group with the symbol PT. Peat
humus and swamp soils with a highly organic texture are typical soils of the
group.
GfH
GFA INTERNATIONAL
FLORIDA'S LEADING ENGINEERING SOURCE
Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd
St. Lucie County, Florida
June 19, 2015 SCANNED
GFA Project No.: 15-1194.00 BY
St LuCeC®urgy
For: Florida Fruit Association
':
_a�'Since1988 "���
Environmental
Florida's Leading Engineering Source
Testing • Threshold and Special Inspections • Plan
June 19, 2015
Florida Fruit Association
Attention: Leo George
716 20th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32962
Site: Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
NE Corner of Kings Hwy & Angle Rd
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project # 15-1194.00
Dear Mr. George:
GFA International, Inc. (GFA) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering evaluation for the above -referenced project in accordance with the geotechnical
and engineering service agreement for this project. The scope of services was completed in
accordance with our Geotechnical Engineering Proposal (15-1194.00) dated June 1, 2015,
planned in conjunction with and authorized by you.
EXECLUT1yE-SUMMARY
The purpose of our subsurface exploration was to classify the nature of the subsurface soils and
general geomorphic conditions and evaluate their impact upon the proposed construction. This
report contains the results of our subsurface exploration at the site and our engineering
interpretations of these, with respect to the project characteristics described to us including
providing recommendations for site preparation and the design of the foundation system.
Based on a site plan prepared by Masteller & Moler, Inc. dated 5/28/2015 (reproduced in
Appendix B - Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of
constructing a 1-story storage building. 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 50 kips and the maximum wall loading will be 4 kips per linear
foot. GFA estimates the site is at or near final grade.
The recommendations provided herein are based upon the above considerations. If the project
description has been revised, please inform GFA International so that we may review our
recommendations with respect to any modifications.
A total of two (2) standard penetration test (SPT) borings to depths of approximately twenty (20)
feet below ground surface (BGS) were completed for this study.
The subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site generally consist of medium dense sand
(SP) to silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC,SM,SC) to a depth of 6%: feet, and then loose to
medium dense sand (SP) to slightly silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC) to the boring and probe
termination depths. Please refer to Appendix D - Record of Test Borings for a detailed account
of each boring.
521 NW Enterprise Drive - Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 - (772) 924.3575 - (772) 924-3580
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 2 of 9
The subsurface soil conditions at the project site are generally faOi9ble for the support of the
proposed structure on shallow foundations. An allowable bearin capacity of 2,500 psf may be
used for foundation design.
The subgrade soils should be improved with compaction from the s pir ped grade prior to
constructing the foundation pads. The top 2 feet below stripped grade should be compacted to
a minimum of 95% density prior to placing fill to achieve final grade. Fill (including stemwall
backfill) should be placed in 12-inch lifts and compacted to achieve a minimum 95% density.
After excavation for footings, the subgrade to a depth of 2 feet below bottom of footings should
be compacted to achieve a minimum 95% density.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a
continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or
comments, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Number 4930
P.E.
Copies: 2, Addressee
Project Coordinator
r-�
Proposed f-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 3 of 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
1.1 Scope of Services............................................................................................................4
1.2 Project Description...........................................................................................................4
2.0 OBSERVATIONS.................................................................................................................4
2.1 Site Inspection.................................................................................................................4
2.2 Field Exploration..............................................................................................................5
2.3 Laboratory Analysis..........................................................................................................5
2.4 Geomorphic Conditions....................................................................................................5
2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions..............................................................................................6
3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................6
3.1 General............................................................................................................................6
3.2 Site Preparation...............................................................................................................6
3.3 Design of Footings...........................................................................................................8
3.4 Ground Floor Slabs..........................................................................................................8
4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................8
5.0 'BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................9
Appendix A - Vicinity Map
Appendix B - Test Location Plan
Appendix C - Notes Related to Borings
Appendix D - Record of Test Borings
Appendix E - Discussion of Soil Groups
6FP
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 4 of 9
1.0 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
geotechnical significance for building construction. The following scope of services is provided
within this report:
1. Prepare records of the soil boring logs depicting the subsurface soil conditions encountered
during our field exploration.
2. Conduct a review of each soil sample obtained during our field exploration for classification
and additional testing if necessary.
3. Analyze the existing soil conditions found during our exploration with respect to foundation
support for the proposed structure.
4. Provide recommendations with respect to foundation support of the structure, including
allowable soil -bearing capacity, bearing elevations, and foundation design parameters.
5. Provide criteria and site preparation procedures to prepare the site for the proposed
construction.
1.2 Project Description
Based on a site plan prepared by Masteller & Molar, Inc. dated 5/28/2015 (reproduced in
Appendix B - Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of
constructing a 1-story storage building. 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 50 kips and the maximum wall loading will be 4 kips per linear
foot. GFA estimates the site is at or near final grade.
The recommendations provided herein are based upon the above considerations. If the project
description has been revised, please inform GFA International so that we may review our
recommendations with respect to any modifications.
2.0 OBSERVATIONS
2.1 Site Inspection
The project site was generally uneven with a grade change of about 2 feet across the site. The
site was an operating agricultural facility. The grade was generally even with the adjacent road
at the time of drilling. Several buildings and structures occupied the site.
0�
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus \ Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 5 of 9
2.2 Field Exploration
A total of two (2) standard penetration test (SPT) borings to depths of approximately twenty (20)
feet below ground surface (BGS) were completed for this study. The locations of the borings
performed are illustrated in Appendix B: 'Test Location Plan". The Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) method was used as the investigative tools within the borings. SPT tests were performed
in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split -Barrel
Sampling of Soils". The SPT test procedure consists of driving a 1.4-inch I.D. split -tube sampler
into the soil profile using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows per foot,
for the second and third 6-inch increment, is an indication of soil strength.
The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were visually classified and their stratification
is illustrated in Appendix D: 'Record of Test Borings". It should be noted that soil conditions
might vary between the strata interfaces, which are shown. The soil boring data reflect
information from a specific test location only. Site specific survey staking for the test locations
was not provided for our field exploration. The indicated depth and location of each test was
approximated based upon existing grade and estimated distances and relationships to obvious
landmarks. The boring depths were confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the
proposed construction and knowledge of vicinity soils.
2.3 Laboratory Analysis
Soil samples recovered from our field exploration were returned to our laboratory where they
were visually examined in general accordance with ASTM D-2488. Samples were evaluated to
obtain an accurate understanding of the soil properties and site geomorphic conditions. After a
thorough visual examination of the recovered site soils, no laboratory testing was deemed
necessary. Bag samples of the soil encountered during our field exploration will be held in our
laboratory for your inspection for 30 days and then discarded unless we are notified otherwise in
writing.
The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical
composition or environmental hazards. GFA would be pleased to perform these services for an
additional fee, if required.
2.4 Geomorphic Conditions
The geology of the site as mapped on the USDA Soil Survey website consists of Winder loamy
sand (55). These are sandy and clayey soils and organic soils are not indicated. It should
be noted that the Soil Survey generally extends to a maximum depth of 80 inches
(approximately 6% feet) below ground surface and is not indicative of deeper soil conditions.
Boring logs derived from our field exploration are presented in Appendix D: 'Record of Test
Borings". The boring logs depict the observed soils in graphic detail. The Standard Penetration
Test borings indicate the penetration resistance, or N-values, during the drilling and sampling
activities. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon
Visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. All soil samples reviewed have been
depicted and classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
modified as necessary to describe typical Florida conditions. See Appendix E: "Discussion of
Soil Groups", for a detailed description of various soil groups.
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 6 of 9
The subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site generally consist of medium dense sand
(SP) to silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC,SM,SC) to a depth of 6'/z feet, and then loose to
medium dense sand (SP) to slightly silty/clayey sand (SP-SM,SP-SC) to the boring and probe
termination depths. Please refer to Appendix D - Record of Test Borings for a detailed account
of each boring.
2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions
On the dates of our field exploration, the groundwater table was not encountered within a depth
ranging of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater table will fluctuate
seasonally depending upon local rainfall and other site specific and/or local influences. Brief
ponding of stormwater may occur across the site after heavy rains.
No additional investigation was included in our scope of work in relation to the wet seasonal
high groundwater table or any existing well fields in the vicinity. Well fields may influence water
table levels and cause significant fluctuations. If a more comprehensive water table analysis is
necessary, please contact our office for additional guidance.
3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General
A foundation system for any structure must be designed to resist bearing capacity failures, have
settlements that are tolerable, and resist the environmental forces that the foundation may be
subjected to over the life of the structure. The soil bearing capacity is the soil's ability to support
loads without plunging into the soil profile. Bearing capacity failures are analogous to shear
failures in structural design and are usually sudden and catastrophic.
The amount of settlement that a structure may tolerate is dependent on several factors
including: uniformity of settlement, time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties
of the materials. Generally, total or uniform settlement does not damage a structure but may
affect drainage and utility connections. These can generally tolerate movements of several
inches for building construction. In contrast, differential settlement affects a structure's frame
and is limited by the structural flexibility.
The subsurface soil conditions at the project site are generally favorable for the support of the
proposed structure on shallow foundations. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be
used for foundation design. Expected settlement of the structure is 1 inch or less total and less
than inch differential.
3.2 Site Preparation
GFA recommends the following compaction requirements for this project:
➢ Proof Roll......................................................................95% of a Modified Proctor
➢ Building Pad Fill............................................................95% of a Modified Proctor
➢ Footings ............................. ........................................... 95% of a Modified Proctor
GF�
Proposed i-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 7 of 9
The compaction percentages presented above are based upon the maximum dry density as
determined by a "modified proctor" test (ASTM D-1557). All density tests should be
performed to a depth of 2 feet below stripped surface and below bottom of footings. All
density tests should be performed using the nuclear method (ASTM D-2922), the sand cone
method (ASTM D-1556), or Hand Cone Penetrometer (HCP) tests.
Our recommendations for preparation of the site for use of shallow foundation systems are
presented below. This approach to improving and maintaining the site soils has been found to
be successful on projects with similar soil conditions.
Initial site preparation should consist of performing stripping (removing surface vegetation,
near surface roots, and other deleterious matter) and clearing operations. This should be
done within, and to a distance of five (5) feet beyond, the perimeter of the proposed building
footprint (including exterior isolated columns). Foundations and any below grade remains of
any structures that are within the footprint of the new construction should be removed, and
utility lines should be removed or properly abandoned so as to not affect structures.
2. Following site stripping and prior the placement of any fill, areas of surficial sand (not
exposed limestone) should be compacted ("proof rolled") and tested. 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 rolled
surface at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet, or a minimum of three
(3) tests, whichever is greater. Areas of exposed intact limestone shall be visually confirmed
by the project geotechnical engineer prior to fill placement, in lieu of proof rolling.
3. Fill material may then be placed in the building pad as required. The fill material should be
inorganic (classified as SP, SW, GP, GW, SP-SM, SW-SM, GW-GP, GP -GM) containing not
more than 5 percent (by weight) organic materials. Fill materials with silt/clay-size soil
fines in excess of 12% should not be used. Fill should be placed in lifts with a maximum
lift thickness not exceeding 12-inches. Each lift should be compacted and tested prior to the
placement of the next lift. Density tests should be performed within the fill at a frequency of
not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or a minimum of
three (3) tests per lift, whichever is greater.
4. For any footings bearing on a limestone formation, the bottom of all footing excavation shall
be examined by the engineer / geologist or his representative to determine the condition of
the limestone. The limestone shall be probed for voids and loose pockets of sand. Such
areas shall be cleaned to depth of 3 times the greatest horizontal dimension and backfilled
with lean concrete.
For footings placed on structural fill or compacted native granular soils, the bottom of all
footings shall be tested for compaction and examined by the engineer / geologist or his
representative to determine if the soil is free of organic and/or deleterious material. Density
tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than one (1) density test per each
isolated column footing and one (1) test per each seventy five (75) lineal feet of wall
footings.
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus Geotechnical Report
St. Lucie County, Florida June 19, 2015
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00 Page 8 of 9
6. The contractor should take into account the final contours and grades as established by the
plan when executing his backfilling and compaction operations.
Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We
recommend that you monitor nearby structures before and during proof -compaction operations.
A representative of GFA International can monitor the vibration disturbance of adjacent
structures. A proposal for vibration monitoring during compaction operations can be supplied
upon request.
3.3 Design of Footings
Footings may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Shallow
foundations should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below final grade. This embedment
shall be measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated column footings should be at least
24 inches in width and continuous strip footings should have a width of at least 18 inches
regardless of contact pressure.
Once site preparation has been performed in accordance with the recommendations described
in this report, the soil should readily support the proposed structure resting on a shallow
foundation system. Settlements have been projected to be less than 1-inch total and'/2-inch
differential. All footings and columns should be structurally separated from the floor slab, as
they will be loaded differently and at different times, unless a monolithic mat foundation is
designed.
3.4 Ground Floor Slabs
The ground floor slabs may be supported directly on the existing grade or on granular fill
following the foundation site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report.
For purposes of design, a coefficient of subgrade modulus 150 pounds per cubic inch may be
used. The ground floor slab should be structurally separated from all walls and columns to
allow for differential vertical movement unless a monolithic foundation is used.
Excessive moisture vapor transmission through floor slabs -on -grade can result in damage to
floor coverings as well as cause other deleterious affects. An appropriate moisture vapor
retarder should be placed beneath the floor slab to reduce moisture vapor from entering the
building through the slab. The retarder should be installed in general accordance with
applicable ASTM procedures including sealing around pipe penetrations and at the edges of
foundations.
4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners and
other members of the design team for the Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus, 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
GF�
Proposed 1-Story Storage Building at Rio Citrus
St. Lucie County, Florida
GFA Project No. 15-1194.00
Geotechnical Report
June 19, 2015
Page 9 of 9
not become evident until the time of construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be
necessary to reevaluate information and professional opinions as provided in this report. In the
event changes are made in the nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the
evaluation and opinions contained in this report shall not be considered valid, unless the
changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by GFA International.
5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained
from the tests performed at the locations indicated on the attached figure in Appendix B. This
report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings. While the borings are
representative of the subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their 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 soil logs is approximate
and the description represents our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the designated
boring locations on the particular date drilled.
Any third parry reliance of our geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without
the expressed written consent of GFA International. The applicable SPT methodology (ASTM
D-1586), CPT methodology (ASTM D-3441), and Auger Boring methodology (ASTM D-1452)
used in performing our borings and sounding, and for determining penetration and cone
resistance is specific to the sampling tools utilized and does not reflect the ease or difficulty to
advance other tools or materials.
GFP
Appendix A - Vicinity Map
a ''. } • r M L 'C v. 4 SP
�l • • ,v iw
W Angle$R,. r
•,.I�L� r ' r ''i s::• '>�O1S§G uylti n'���b � . � ti ..,
" � y^a:GF • Lrlti ��l is 41
.:., t Vryyerya„Oy��E ,��,/Ss39a q y III[ 2' 17ui27 Ion w..y 797955 � ele°! F to tt eye alt 11:3 (t
F�
X",
WF—
Test Location Plan: Proposed 1-Story Building at Rio Citrus, St. Lucie County, FL
f�e.nu
- t ......e`mv
y w
� y
....,,, BITE DATAss.,
...
II
ti
SLNG
I . 1 C�yp;
T •4 ....
'F �6WC
y+j��•�
r.w
1 »hr
W
Jr u�i i SEA'
i
taiN Bum .__
z
;
_
�'° Olwa
i v•t'} 1.
Y-�J`.}�%f••���
o-u+
Y'�3Y�Y^'1.
' 9enoW0e
w��lvrvw
Y
_ •. '�— "t
I �
} Mm.bn�, Xe�ure_m
�&eg
•��'.
5�� I,
rrow\m ueeo inlludty
�fr
'I
y .uw....
sF.wsn. cwr+A. o-zs
FENA•Fbob Zero Mbn.Nan
a ;^.,. _-
'.\II\IAFf �ITf• �I .�\I
..+....uK uw,./aur.u.r..ou•.,
1200 @AMU@ 19KPG1G1i O G9
--Approximate Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Boring Locations
Appendix C - Notes Related to Borings
GfH
NOTES RELATED TO
RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded (if shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on
the date indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are common; consult report text for a discussion.
2. The boring location was identified in the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape
and survey wheel.
3. The borehole was backfilled to site grade following boring completion, and patched with asphalt cold patch mix
when pavement was encountered.
4. The Record of Test Boring represents our interpretation of field conditions based on engineering examination of
the soil samples.
5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations, conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report
text.
6. "Field Test Data' shown on the Record of Test Boring indicated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and means I I hammer blows drove the sampler 6 inches. SPT uses a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
7. The N-value from the SPT is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6-
inch increments.
8. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and may vary from those
shown. The soillrock conditions shown on the Records of Test Boring refer to conditions at the specific location
tested; soil/rock conditions may vary between test locations.
9. Relative density for sands/gravels and consistency for silts/clays are described as follows:
SPT
CPT
SANDS/GRAVELS
SPT
CPT
SILTSICLAYS
BLOWS/FOOT
KG/CM-
RELATIVE DENSITY
BLOWS/FOOT
KG/CM-
CONSISTENC
0-4
0-16
Very loose
0-1
03
Very soft
5-10
17-40
Loose
24
4-6
Soft
11-30
41-120
Medium Dense
5-8
7-12
Firm
31-50
121-200
Dense
9-15
13-25
Stiff
50+
over200
Very Dense
I6-30
25-50
Very stiff
>30
>50
Hard
10. Grain size descriptions areas follows:
NAME
SIZE LIMITS
Boulder
12 Inches or more
Cobbles
3 to 12 Inches
Coarse Gravel
'% to 3 Inches
Fine Gravel
No. 4 sieve to N inch
Coarse Sand
No. 10 to No. 4 sieve
Medium Sand
No. 40 to No. 10 sieve
Fine Sand
No. 200 to No. 40 sieve
Fines
Smaller than No. 200 sieve
11. Definitions related to adjectives used in soil/rock descriptions:
PROPORTION
ADJECTIVE
APPROXIMATE ROOT DIAMETER
ADJECTIVE
<5%
Trace
Less than 1/32"
Fine roots
5%to 12%
Little
1/32" to W'
Small roots
12%to 30%
Some
'W'to I"
Medium roots
30%to 50%
And
Greater than I"
Large roots
Organic Soils: Soils containing vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition that has a fibrous to amorphous texture,
usually a dark brown to black color, and an organic odor.
Organic Content <25%: Slightly to Highly Organic; 25% to 75%: Muck; >75%: Peat