The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDYr \ * Im e r:ra SOUTH FLORI D A GEOTECHNICRI ENGINEERING / NIRTERIRI TESTING / INSPECTION SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Advantage Self Storage Kitterman Road Port St. Lucie, Florida i 'Tc Keen Engineering, 1290 West Palmetto Park R Boca Raton, Florida March 27, 2019 SCANNED BY St. Lucie County Suite 302 2765 Visa PaTt[cwnx, SUITE 10 • WEsc PALM B&.cfi, FLORID'A 33411 (361) 687-8539 • FAX (561) 68778570 State of florlda lemfessloml Engineers liceMe #18073 tierru d SOUTH FLO R I D A GCOTfGIWGLLFNGWEfflWG MPTfflIflLT6lING V6CKiION SEANCES March 27, 2018 (Revised) August 8, 2016 Keen Engineering, Inc. 7280 West Palmetto Park Road, Suite 302 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Attention: Mr. Erik Wilczek, P.E. Re: Geotechnical Engineering Study Advantage Self Storage Kitterman Road Port St. Lucie, Florida TSF Project No. 7111-16-202 Dear Erik: TIERRA SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. (TSF) is pleased to transmit our Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the referenced project. This report includes the results of field exploration and laboratory testing; geotechnical recommendations for foundation and pavement design, as well as general site development. We appreciate the opportunity to perform this Geotecliiucal Study and look forward to continued participation during the design and construction -phases of this project. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we maybe of further service, please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, -- TIF• RR,A,SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. -- a Raj Kris amy, P. . Presid FL. Registration No. 53567 il., - RK/KV: Ram ar Vedula, P.E. Principal Engineer FL. Registration No. 54873 2765 VISTA PARKWAY, SUITE 10 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33411 (561) 687-8539 • FAX (561) 687-8570 State of Florida Professional Engineers License #28073 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..................................................................................... 2 ® 2.1 Project Authorization................................................................................... 2 ® 2.2 Project Description....................................................................................... 2 ® 2.3 Purpose and Scope of Services...................................:................................ 2 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................. 4 ® 3.1 Site Location and Description...................................................................... 4 ® 3.2 Subsurface Conditions................................................................................. 4 ,013.3 Groundwater Information............................................................................ 5 ® 3.4 Borehole Permeability (BHP) Test Results ................................................. 5 4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................... 6 ®4.1 Geotechnical Discussion............................................................................... 6 ,014.2 Site Preparation........................................................................................... 6 ® 4.3 Foundation Recommendations.................................................................... 7 ® 4.4 Floor Slab Recommendations...................................................................... 8 ® 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressure.................................................................................. 8 ® 4.6 Truck Dock Walls........................................................................................ 9 ® 4.7 Utilities......................................................................................................... 9 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS................................................................ 10 ® 5.1 Excavations.................................................................................................. 10 6.0 INSPECTIONS/QUALITY CONTOL TESTING .................................................. 11 7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX- BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS BORING LOCATION PLAN AND SOIL PROFILE — SHEET 1 i 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical exploration and evaluation of the subsurface conditions have been completed for the design and construction of (1) 3 story building and (3) single story buildings at the southwest corner of Kitterman Road and US 1 in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Based on visual classifications underneath the existing topsoil, the subsurface condition encountered in the borings typically consisted of about 10 to 15 feet of sandy soils followed by 4 to 9 feet of gray silt which is underlain by sandy soils to the terminated depth of the borings. Standard Penetration N-Values indicated the upper sandy soils to be, generally, in medium dense conditions. The groundwater was, typically, encountered between about 4 and 5 feet below the ground surface. The geotechnical study completed for the proposed construction confirms that the site will be suitable for the planned construction when viewed from a soil mechanics and foundation engineering perspective. After following proper site preparation procedures, the structure may be supported on shallow spread foundations and employ conventional slab -on -grade for the ground floors. Details related to site development, foundation design, and construction considerations are included in subsequent sections of this report. The owner/designer should not rely solely on this Executive Summary and must read and evaluate the entire contents of this report prior to utilizing our engineering recommendations in preparation of design/construction documents. Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 i � 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Proiect Authorization TSF has completed a geotechnical exploration for the proposed 3-story building and 3 single -story buildings to be constructed at the southwest corner of Kitterman Road and US 1 in Port St. Lucie, Florida. This geotechnical service was performed in accordance with TSF's Proposal No. 1606-284 dated June 6, 2016 and subsequently authorized by Advantage Development, LLC. 2.2 Proiect Description Our understanding of the project is based on general information obtained from Keen Engineering, hie. as well as Site Plans indicating the proposed building. We understand that the proposed construction will consist of (1) 3 story building and (3) single story buildings. Loading information has not been provided at this time. It is assumed that the site is at design grade. The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information, building location, and the subsurface materials described in this report. If any of the noted information is incorrect, please inform TSF in writing so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report if appropriate and if desired by the client. TSF will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when it is not notified of changes in the project. 2.3 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site which is currently accessible to enable an evaluation of acceptable foundation and pavement systems for the proposed construction. This report briefly outlines the testing procedures, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and general site development. Our scope of services included drilling a total of five (5) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to a depth of about 25 feet, performing four (4) Borehole Permeability tests to a depth of 10 feet, plus the preparation of this geotechnical report. This report briefly outlines the testing procedures, presents available project information, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents geotechnical recommendations regarding the following: ®- Foundation soil preparation requirements. —./- _Foundation types, depths, allowable bearing capacities, and an estimate of potential settlement. ®- Comments regarding factors that may impact construction and performance of the proposed construction. Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 I The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater, or air on or below, or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for information purposes only. Keen Engineering, Inc. _ Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Location and Description The project site is located at the southwest comer of Kitterman Road and US 1 in Port St. Lucie, Florida, At the time of field exploration, the area was observed to be fairly level. The site is currently heavily vegetated with some openings. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions Review of the "Soil Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida", prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), indicates the site is mapped as follows: 21-Lawnwood and Myakka sands: This poorly drained, nearly level soil is on broad flatwoods. Typically, the surface layer is about 8 inches thick. It is black sand in the upper 4 inches and very dark gray sand in the lower 4 inches. 32 — Pineda sand: This poorly drained, nearly level soil is in low hammocks. Typically, the surface layer is about 6 inches thick. It is very dark grayish brown in the upper 3 inches and dark brown in the lower 3 inches. 38- Riviera fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes: This poorly drained, nearly level soil is in low hammocks. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand about 5 inches thick. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored with engineering borings located as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Sheet 1 in the Appendix. The study included the drilling of five (5) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to a depth of about 25 feet. The soil test boring profiles are presented on Sheet 1 in the Appendix. Samples of the in -place materials were recovered at frequent intervals using a standard split spoon driven with a 140-pound hammer freely falling 30 inches (the SPT after ASTM D 1586). Samples of the in -place soils were returned to our laboratory for classification by a geotechnical engineer, in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487). At the time of our field exploration, underneath the existing topsoil, the subsurface condition encountered in the borings typically consisted of about 10 to 15 feet of sandy soils followed by 4 to 9 feet of gray silt which is underlain by sandy soils to the terminated depth of the borings. Standard Penetration N-Values indicated the upper sandy soils to be,'generally, in medium dense conditions. The above subsurface description is of a generalized nature intended to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. These records include soil descriptions, stratifications, and penetration resistances. The stratifications shown on the boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials, and the actual Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 transition may be gradual. Water level information obtained during field operations is also shown on the boring logs. The samples that were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for 30 days from the date of this report and then will be discarded. 3.3 Groundwater Information Groundwater levels were measured in the borings when first encountered. The groundwater was, typically, encountered between about 4 and 5 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal fluctuations. We expect the groundwater to, typically, fluctuate within about 2 feet from where it was encountered during the drilling operation. In general, the seasonal high groundwater level is not intended to define a limit or ensure that future seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels will not exceed the estimated levels. Post -development groundwater levels could exceed the normal seasonal high groundwater level estimate as a result of a series of rainfall events, changed conditions at the site that alter surface water drainage characteristics, or variations in the duration, intensity, or total volume of rainfall. We recommend that the Contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determine groundwater impact on his or her construction procedures. 3.4 Borehole Permeability (BHP) Test Results Four (4) BHP tests were performed using the usual open -hole, constant head methodology per South Florida Water Management District Standard. The hole was 10 feet deep, and was drilled with a solid stem auger so that soil samples could be retrieved for visual classification by an engineer. The borings were completed as open well with gravel pack (6-20 silica sand). The well screen slot widths were 0.020 inches. Water from the drill rig tank was then pumped into the open well, and the amount of water required maintaining constant head was recorded. The results of our field permeability tests are attached in the appendix. Keen Engineering, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16.202 4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Geotechnical Discussion The geotechnical study completed for the proposed construction confirms that the site will be suitable for the planned construction when viewed from a soil mechanics and foundation engineering perspective. After following proper site preparation procedures as recommend Section 4.2 in this report, the structure may be supported on shallow spread foundations with an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pso and employ conventional slab -on -grade for the ground floors. Recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of site preparation, foundation design and related construction are presented in the following sections of this report. 4.2 Site Preparation To prepare for construction, we recommend that any topsoil, any foundation remnants, debris, and existing vegetation including trees, roots, and any organic soils be removed in its entirety from the footprint of the proposed construction and wasted. Existing utilities, if any, should be removed from the building foot print area. The building footprint should be compacted with a self-propelled roller (higersoll-Rand SD-100D or equivalent) until the subsoils achieve 95 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) to a depth of at least 12 inches below the existing grade. Unsuitable soil and material such as organics or muck if any encountered under the proposed construction should also be removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill as recommended in this report. The soil densification should encompass the entire footprint of the structure plus a 10-foot wide perimeter that extends beyond the maximum lines of the superstructure. Review of aerials indicate that some clearing activity may have been performed at the site. Therefore, construction debris could be encountered in some parts of the site, requiring removal prior to placing fill. Also, the site is heavily vegetated. Deeper pockets of roots and/or i organic material should be expected in the site, requiring removal prior to placing fill. All foundation remnant(debris/organic material removal areas should be properly backfilled and compacted as discussed herein. These conditions should be taken into account and should be budgeted accordingly. Rolled subgrade should be visually observed for signs of pumping, weaving or other types of instability. Signs of such instability could be due to the existence of weak and/or compressible subsoils. Corrective action for this condition should include excavation of weak subsoils followed by replacement with clean granular fill compacted to 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density. Structural fill used to raise the site to structure bottom levels should consist of clean sand { r and/or sand and gravel (ASTM D 2487), with a maximum of 12 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. The structural fill should be placed in thin lifts (12-inch thick loose measure), near the optimum moisture content for compaction, and be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16.202 apt � Near existing structures (within 50 feet), proofrolling should be performed in static mode. Ground vibrations induced by the compaction operations should be closely monitored to assess if there is a potential -impact to the existing structures. Ground vibrations induced by the compaction operations should be closely monitored to assess if there is a potential impact to the existing buildings. Following site preparation as discussed herein, the foundation areas should be excavated and the footing subgrade should be compacted with a heavy roller or at least a heavy plate compactor to the above mentioned 95% criteria. Unsuitable material or organic soils (if any) found at foundation bottoms should be removed and replaced with structural fill, as discussed above. In areas where footings bear at lower elevations (possibly close to or slightly below the water table) such as the truck well area, the footing excavation should be dewatered and the footing subgrade should be compacted in the dry with a heavy roller or at least a heavy plate compactor to the above mentioned 95% criteria to a depth of at least 12 inches below the existing grade. The footings should be formed and poured in -the -dry. Prior to placing the steel for the footings, the footing subgrade should be inspected by a TSF representative. If additional structural fill is required to achieve design grade, each lift of compacted engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 5 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping. 4.3 Foundation Recommendations Conventional spread footings are generally most economical when the existing soil conditions allow them to be founded at shallow depths. Following completion of site preparation as discussed herein, _ we recommend supporting the planned structures on conventional spread foundations based in engineered fill and/or the surficial granular soils of the site. The footings may be designed and proportioned for a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psfl. Footings should i bottom at least 24 inches below final grade. Footings supporting individual columns should have a minimum width of 36 inches and continuous footings a minimum width of 24 inches, even if the geometry produces a bearing pressure less than the allowable. _ Settlement of foundations based in the in -situ granular soils and/or engineered fill will occur as an elastic response of the soils to the building loads applied. For foundations that are based on soils prepared as discussed herein, we estimate that total and differential average foundation settlements _ should be on the order of 1 inch and '/z inch, respectively. The settlement forecast is based on imposed soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. We expect majority of settlements to occur as the loads are applied. We expect settlements on the order of about''/2 inch in about 2 to 5 years due to compression of the silt. These estimates need to be re-evaluated once final loads are provided. Excavating -equipment may disturb the granular bearing soil in foundation areas. The upper 12 inches of the footing subgrade should be compacted to achieve not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 immediately prior to reinforcing and concrete placement. Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16.202 The foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of TSF prior to steel or concrete placements to assess those foundation materials are capable of supporting the design loads and are consistent with the materials discussed in this report. Loose soil zones encountered at the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed to the level of medium dense soils or adequately compacted structural fill as directed by the geotechnical engineer. 4A Floor Slab Recommendations Following stripping and surface soil preparation as described herein, the building pad area should be leveled and filled to subfloor elevation before placing concrete. Slab subgrade should consist of clean sand and/or sand and gravel (ASTM D 2487), with a maximum of 12 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) to a depth of at least 12 inches below the slab grade. Structural fill used to raise the site to floor slab bottom levels should consist of clean granular fill as described above. The structural fill should be placed in thin lifts (12-inch thick loose measure), near the optimum moisture content for compaction, and be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Our experience indicates that floor slabs constructed without a vapor barrier will often experience future problems associated with moisture and mildew. Therefore, we recommend interior floor slab subgrade soils be covered with a vapor barrier (such as visqueen, normally 6 mil thick) before constructing the slab -on -grade floor. Slab -on -grade construction may be used for the ground floor slabs of the structure. The slabs should be adequately reinforced to carry the loads that are to be applied. The floor slab design, if based on elastic methods, should employ a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci). To help avoid potential problems with cracking because of differential loadings, the floor slabs should be liberally jointed and separated from columns and walls. The friction factor between the soil and floor slabs should be taken as 0.35 without the vapor barrier. A friction factor of 0.21 should be used for the vapor barrier -soil interface. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressure Based on the borings, the upper soils at the site consist primarily of sandy soil with loose to dense consistencies. For drained loading conditions, lateral earth pressure coefficients may be taken as 0.5 at -rest, 0.33 for active pressure, and 3.0 for passive pressure. Assuming a soil unit weight of 125 pcf, an equivalent fluid pressure of 62.5 pcf, and 41.25 pcf may be used for the at -rest, and active earth pressure cases. This pressure does not include hydrostatic pressure and if there is a potential for build up of hydrostatic pressure, we recommend a drainage system be provided behind the walls to relieve hydrostatic pressure. A coefficient of sliding friction of 0.35 is recommended. If the retaining wall is in proximity to the water main or any sprinkler system, we recommend that retaining wall be checked for hydrostatic pressure for potential water main or sprinkler break. Below Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 Q grade walls, if any, below a 100-year flood elevation (if established by FEMA) should be waterproofed (such as Preprafe® 160R manufactured by Grace Construction Products or pre - approved equivalent). 4.6 Truck Dock Walls Since portions of the truck dock walls may serve as earth retaining walls, recommendations are provided for use as required. Because the deflection of the walls is anticipated to be limited, we recommend using an at -rest stress condition for wall design. The actual earth pressures on the walls will vary according to the building material types and the way backfill material is compacted and drained. Heavy compaction equipment, over -compaction of fill next to walls and inadequate drainage may induce higher pressures than estimated herein. Based on the at -rest, drained loading condition, earth retaining walls may be designed for a pressure equivalent to that imposed by a fluid having a unit weight of 62.5 pounds per cubic foot. This pressure is based upon a drained condition behind the walls such that buildup of hydrostatic pressure does not occur. Also, surcharge loading has not been considered, but should be included by the designer as required. We understand that footings for the truck dock walls will bear at 6 feet 4 inches below finished floor. Footings for the truck dock walls can also be designed for the above mentioned 3000 psf after following site preparation procedures described above. 4.7 Utilities All utilities should be installed per the requirements of the Civil Engineering drawings and specifications. When backfilling over utility lines, clean granular fill should be placed in no more than 6 to 12-inch thick loose lifts and compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum dry density as detemvned by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D 1557). Keen Engineering, Inc Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 10 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS It is recommended that TSF be retained to provide observation and testing of construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this project. TSF cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions that deviate from those described in this report, nor for the performance of the foundation if not engaged to also provide construction observation and testing for this project. 5.1 Excavations In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P." This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely adhered, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottoms. The contractor's "responsible person," as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. TSF does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's or other parties' compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations. Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 6.0 INSPECTIONS/OUALITY CONTROL TESTING During construction it is important that work be performed under qualified inspection to ensure proper procedures are followed. We will perform all foundation and earthwork related inspections, and reports will be prepared for your records and submission to the appropriate governmental agencies. We can also perform testing services, soils, concrete and asphalt for compliance with project requirements. Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. i TSF File No. 7111-16-202 12 7.0 REPORT LBUTATIONS The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by TSF and design details fiunished by Keen Engineering, Inc. for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this -project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, TSF should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If TSF is not retained to perform these functions, TSF will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions of the project. The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional- advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotecbnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed. After the plans and specifications are more complete, the geotechnical engineer should be retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Keen Engineering, hic. for the proposed Self - Storage building to be constructed at the southwest comer of Kitterman Road and US 1 in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Keen Engineering, Inc. Tierra South Florida, Inc. TSF File No. 7111-16-202 APPENDIX Borehole Percolation Test Results Boring Location Plan and Soil Profile — Sheet 1 USUAL OPEN - HOLE TEST EVALUATION i e r r SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT METHOD M. SOIUTH FLORIDA ' " �- uoaaeanan�cmu:raremwrtsro.asmmewwas Client: Keen, Engineering Test No.: BHP-1 Date: QYT2s/ib Project: ADVANTAGE SELF STORAGE Well Depth: 10.0 Feet Analyst: MP Job No.: 7111-16-202 Location: St. Lucie County, Florida Elapsed Time (min) Flow Rate (gpm) Equation for Value: 4Q Soil profile: Tr`d(2H2` + 41-12D6 + H2d) 0-0.2' TOPSOIL 0.2'-10' BROWN SAND (SP) k = 1.33E-04 CF/S/Ft2 - Ft Head H2 = 4.00 Ft Hydraulic Head Depth of GWT (FT)= 4.00 Where: Hydraulic Conductivity `� ` x K +1t`33E 04, CF/S/F1 Ft'Head ,: ~ -` 0 0.00 1. 2.00 2.00 2 4.00 2.00 3 6.00 2.00 4 8.00 2.00 5 10.00 2.00 6 12.00 2.00 7 14.00 2.00 8 16.00 2.00 9 18.00 2.00 10 20.00 2.00+r..._ Flow Rate vs Elapsed Time 2.50 E 2.00 c. q 1.50 m 1.00 0 0.50 LL 000 2.00 0 2 4 8 8 Elapsed Time (min) 10 12 tierr Qm�.��t,7�„� .UiH PLO .'"��'�iWWi omrtoalunamwcwwp*metre.nmm: USUAL OPEN - HOLE TEST EVALUATION SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT METHOD R 1 D A Client: Keen Engineering. Test No.: BHP-2 Date: 07/26/16 Project: ADVANTAGE SELF STORAGE Well Depth: 10.0 Feet Analyst: MP Job No.: 7111-16-202 Location: St. Lucie County, Florida Elapsed Flow Rate Time (min) (gpm) Equation Where: for K Value: k = HZ 4Q Soil profile: Tr'd(21-12`+41-12D5+H2d) 0-0.2'TOPSOIL 0.2'-10' BROWN SAND (SP) 1.26E-04 CF/S/Fe - Ft Head 4.00 Ft Hydraulic Head Depth of GWT (FT)= 4.00 Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.26E-04 CF/S/Ft2 Ft Head'' ; 0 0.00 1 1,.90 1.90 2 3.80 1.90 3 5.70 1.90 4 7.60 1.90 5 9.50 1.90 6 11.40 1.90 7 13.30 1.90 8 15.20 1.90 9 17.10 1.90 10 19.00 1.90 Flow Rate vs Elapsed Time 2.00 ■ ■ OF ■-■ 1.80 ■ ■ ■-F-■ E 1.60 rn 1.40 1.20 a) 1,00 16 cc 0.80 0.60 0 0.40 Constant Flow Rate m 1.90 LL 0.20 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Elapsed Time (min) N USUAL OPEN - HOLE TEST EVALUATION SOUTH T Ft FLORIDAerra SOUTH FLOR ID WATER MANAG MENT METHOD awaaamaaw«nnvx,jwa�samra,nva„a,smxe. , Client: Keen Engineering Test No.: BHP-3 Date: Project: ADVANTAGE SELF STORAGE Well Depth: 10.0 Feet Analyst: Job No.: 7111-16-202 Location: St. Lucie County, Florida Elapsed Flow Rate Time (min) (gpm) Equation for K Value: 40 Soil profile: 0 0.00 Tr'd(2H2` + 4H2Ds + HZd) 0-0.2' TOPSOIL 1 2.50 2.50 0.2'-10' BROWN SAND (SP) 2 5.00 2.50 k = 1.66E-04 CF/S/Ft2 - Ft Head 3 7.50 2.50 H2 4.00 Ft Hydraulic Head 4 10.00 2.50 Depth of GWT (FT)= 4.00 Where: Hydraulic Conductivity Y t K �y' 66E'O4 CF/S/Ft2 Ft Head;,a', a. 5 12.50 2.50 6 15.00 2.50 7 17.50 2.50 8 20.00 2.50 9 22.50 2.50' 10 25.00 2.50 Flow Rate vs Elapsed Time 3.00 E 2.50 o� 2.00 m 1.50 m 1.00 0 0.50 11L 0.00 0 2 4 6 8 Elapsed Time (min) 10 12 USUAL OPEN - HOLE TEST EVALUATION t i e r ra SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT METHOD SOUTH FLORIDA VY✓ 4M60rttvM1[W4•IAiu YIfRItYIYhiAS(RN: FV¢tlPRfMRfI 1t: Keen Engineering Test No.: BHP-4 Date: 07/26/16 =ct: ADVANTAGE SELF STORAGE Well Depth: 10.0 Feet Analyst: MP No.: 7111-16-202 Location: St. Lucie County, Florida Elapsed Time (min) Flow Rate (gpm) Equation_ for K Value: 40 Soil profile: 1r'd(2H2` + 4HA + 1-12d) 0-0.2' TOPSOIL 0.2'-3.0' BROWN SAND (SP) k = 1.46E-04 CF/S/Ft2- Ft Head 3.0'-10.0' LIGHT BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) H2 4.00 Ft Hydraulic Head - Depth of GWT (FT)= 4.00 Where: Hydraulic Conductivity K 1.46E-04 6F/5/Ft2 Ft Head. , 0 0.00 1 2.20 2.20 2 4.40 220 3 6.60 2.20 4 8.80 2.20 5 11.00 2.20 6 13.20 2.20 7 15.40 2.20 8 17.60 2.20 9 19.80 2.20 10 22.00 2.20 Flow Rate vs Elapsed Time ±*'zl] 2.50 E 2.00 a 1.50 m 15 1.00 EC 0 0.50 u_ 000 0 2 4 6 8 Elapsed Time (min) 10 12 BOR # B-1 i BOR # B-5 DATE 712612016 DATE 712512016 ._ HAMMER Auto AMMER Auto RIG CME-55 RIG CME-55 - NC NC _ 0 TOPSOIL TOPSOIL 0 BB ii 10 �7 24. 5 5 15 20- ;. BROWN SAND (SP) _ 3 BROWN SAND (SP) 14 15 ; w v _I L v w -Q 25 6 ' 14 15 O GRAY SILT (ML) GRAY SILT (ML) 20 4 9 20 -- -1 LIGHT GRAY SAND (SP) 'y; ' LIGHT GRAY SAND (SP) 25 9 9 25 Boring Terminated oring Terminated at Depth of 25ft at Depth of 25fI a. i ,vf ar- S • rL. x OTES ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER TABLE =-„•• ,3„'Hx NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE CORRECTED SPT VALUE FOR 12" PENETRATION I USING AN AUTOMATIC HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR OF 1.24 DENOTES DEPTH IN FEET FROM EXISTING GROUND SURFACE L ENGINEERING SERVICES N BY: AE PROVEO BY: ENGINEEAOi RECORD: POMW SFICBt. NG RK RAJ KRISHNASAMYANTAGE SELF CHECKED BY: FLORIDA LICENSE NO.: DATE: STORAGE 53567 ERMAN RD. MP 08-04-2016 IE COUNTY FLORIDA