The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FaE No.18-151 SCANNED BY St. Lucie County ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 834 SW Swan Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph:772-807-9191 Fx:772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com FILE COPY TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 18-151 PAGE # 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....... :................... .................................................. 1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................ 1 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING................................................... 2 3.1 Site Location and Description........................................................ 2 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey......................................................... 2 _ . 3.3 Project Understanding.............................................................. 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM.................................................................. 3 Table 1 - Field Exploration Program .............. 3 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................. 3 5.1 General Soil Conditions............................................................. 3 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level ....................................................... 4 5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ................................................... 4 Table 2 -Sail Hydraulic Conductivity Results....... 4 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM................................................................ 4 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION......................................................... 5 - ----7.1-General-__...... -...-..::.:.-........................ -.-.-5 7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations................................................... 5 7.2.1 Clearing..................................................................... 5 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures........................................................ 5 7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation ....................................... 6 7.3 Building Foundation and Slab Design ................................................. 7 8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. ...... .....:... 8 8.1 Flexible Pavement Design........................................................... 8 8.2 Rigid Pavement Sections............................................................ 8 9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING FREQUENCY...................................................... 9 10.0 CLOSURE................................................................................ 10 • Figure No. 1 Site Vicinity Maps • Figure No. 2 Field Work Location Plan • Sheet No. 1 General Notes (Soil Boring, Sampling and Testing Methods) • Sheets. No. 2-4 Soil Boring Profiles and Exfiltration Test Results • Appendix I USDA Soil Survey Information Appendix 11 CBR Test Result • Appendix III AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. WWW.AACEINC.COM ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental Consulting AVCON, Inc. 5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32822 Attention: Mr. Robert "Bobby' Palm, P.E. Senior Project Manager - Airports GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT M RO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AACE File No. 18-151 May 8, 2018 In accordance with your request and authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) has completed a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above referenced project. The purpose of performing this exploration was to explore shallow soil types and groundwater levels as they relate to the proposed airport improvement project, and restrictions which these soil and groundwater conditions may place on the various project features. Our work included Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, auger borings, soil hydraulic conductivity (exfiltration) testing, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report documents our explorations and tests, presents our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summary is intended to provide a brief overview of our findings and recommendations; however, the report should be read in its entirety by the project design team members. • The proposed building sites, at the locations explored, were found to be underlain by soils which are generally satisfactory to support the proposed airport hangar and auxiliary building construction on conventional shallowfoundations. Amaximum design foundation bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for the proposed structures. • Typical pavement sections consisting of an asphaltic or rigid concrete wearingsurface atop a calcareous base, followed by a stabilized subgrade on compacted natural soils is considered appropriate for the project. • Site preparation procedures will include clearing, stripping and grubbing of all surface vegetation, organic topsoil, former pavement, etc. followed by proofrolling of building and pavement areas. • The groundwater table was encountered at depths of about 4 to 5 feet below the existing grades. 834 Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -2- AACE File No. 18-151 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJEcr UNDERSTANDING 3.1 Site Location and Description The subject site is located within the southeast portion of the Treasure Coast International Airport (TCIA), northwest of the northern terminus of Jet Center Terrace, in St. Lucie County, Florida (within Section 29, Township 34 South and Range 40 East). A Site Vicinity Map (2017 aerial photograph) which depicts the location of the site is included on the attached Figure No. 1. The site location is further shown superimposed on the 1983 "Fort Pierce, Florida" USGS topographic Quadrangle Map also included on Figure No. 1. The Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property as being relatively level with approximate surface elevations of 19-20 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The subject site currently consists of vacant, grass -covered land with a decommissioned asphalt - paved taxiway (Taxiway 'D') crossing the southern portion of the site and remnants of a former runway or taxiway crossing the northern portion of the site. 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey Accordingto the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the predominant surficial soil type in the area where the site is located is the Lawnwood and Mvakka sands (USDA Map Unit 21). This soil type is noted by the USDA to consist of sandy marine deposits originating from flatwoods found on historic _marine terraces, with sands present to depth in excess of 80 inches_ below grade.___ The approximate location of the subject site was superimposed on an aerial photograph obtained from the USDA Web Soil Survey and is shown on Figure No. 1. Further, the USDA Web Soil Survey summary report is included in Appendix I. 3.3 Project Understanding Based on our current understanding of the TCIA improvement project, the following features are proposed: • A 30,000 sqft. (±) pre-engineered metal hangar with an estimated height of 60 feet. • Approximately4,100 sqft. of office space and 5,500 sqft. of shop space will be constructed in connection with the hangar (anticipated 15-20 foot building height). • A 300,000-gallon ground storage tank (GST) and fire pump building. • A flexible pavement section for conventional vehicle parking. • Both, flexible and rigid pavement sections/aprons for aircraft traffic/parking. • A stormwater retention/detention area (i.e. pond). We have not been provided with any specific structural information relative to the proposed hangar and building(s); however, we have made the following assumptions based on our experience from similar projects: • It is assumed that the hangar building will be a metal building supported on individual perimeter columns, with a roof structure spanning from one side to the other. • Maximum compression column loads are estimated to be 250 kips/column. • Conventional shallow foundations will be the preferred foundation solution. • Uplift forces on the structure(s) will be countered bythe weight of the shallow foundations as well as any overburden soils. e Minimal, if any, fill will be placed to raise the site grades. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJEcr AACE File No. 18-151 Page -3- Should any of these assumptions and/or our understanding of the proposed project features vary significantly from the current design, we request that we be notified to ensure that the recommendations presented herein are suitable for the project. Details of the provided Site Plan are presented as our Field Work Location Plan, Figure No. 2. 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM To explore subsurface conditions at the site, the exploration program summarized in Table 1 below was completed: Table 1- Field Exploration Program Field Work Type Standard # of Borings Depth Below Grade [feet] Location Standard Penetration Test ASTM 10 15-30 Refer to (SPT) D1586 Figure No.2 ' Au8 er ASTM 2 12 Refer to D1452 Figure No.2 Soil Hydraulic SFWMD 1 6 Refer to Conductivity Test 'ERPIMI'I Figure No.2 Note to Table 1: 1 SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual, Volume IV 2009 Version Ourfield exploration program was completed in the period April20through May 2, 2018. The field work locations shown on Figure No. 2 were determined in the field by our field crew using the provided site plan, online aerial photographs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled GPS instrument. Atmospheric disturbances and local weather conditions may affectthe accuracy of the GPS instrument readings and the shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. We preliminarily anticipate that the actual locations are within 15 feet of those shown on Figure No. 2. Summaries of AACE's field procedures are presented on Sheet No.1 and the individual boring and test profiles are presented on the attached on Sheets No. 2-4. Samples obtained during performance of the borings were visually classified in the field, and representative portions of the samples were transported to our laboratory in sealed sample jars for further classification. The soil samples recovered from our explorations will be kept in our laboratory for 60 days, then discarded unless you specifically request otherwise. 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 General5oil Conditions Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated on the soil boring profiles presented on the attached Sheets No. 2-4. The stratification of the boring profiles represents our interpretation of the field. boring logs and the results of laboratory examinations of the recovered samples. The stratification lines representthe approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual than implied. In general, atthe locations and depths explored, the majority of our soil borings encountered a thin layer of topsoil (sands with roots/organics) followed by loose to moderately dense fine sands (SP) and occasionally slightly clayey fine sands (SP-SC). TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT AACE File No. 18-151 Page -4- Further, a thin layer of near -surface hardpan -type soils was encountered in approximately half of the completed borings. Hardpan -type soils are near -surface sandy soils where the individual soil particles are cemented together by either calcium -carbonate or iron oxide. The hardpan layers typically vary in thickness from 1 foot to 3 feet and contain low amounts of silt and organic materials. Hardpan layers are often relatively impervious, restrictive to vertical water infiltration, and create a horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Hardpan is generally considered suitable for the support of structures/traffic and also for use as fill. To promote vertical infiltration within ponds and/orexfiltration trench systems, consideration can be given to overexavating the hardpan -type soils and replacing them with free -draining granular soils. This is discussed further herein. The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only. Please refer to the attached Sheets No. 2-4 for individual soil profile details. 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level The groundwater table depth as encountered in the borings during the field investigations is shown adjacent to the soil profiles on the attached Sheets No. 2-4. As can be seen, the groundwater table was generally encountered at depths ranging from about 4 feet to about 5 feet below the existing ground surface, with this range likely attributed to similar, localized variations in site topography. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were _ conducted. - -- -- — - — — - - --- -- - --- - - 5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing One (1) soil hydraulic conductivity test was performed at the locations shown on Figure No. 2. In general, the test was performed in substantial accordance with methods described in the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual (ERPIM), Volume IV and yielded the following results: Table 2 - Soil Hvdraulic Conductivitv Results Test No. Groundwater Depth (ft-bls) Flow Rate, Q (cfs) Hydraulic Conductivity, K (cfs/sqf - ft head) EX-1 4.5 3.6 x IU3 1.3 x 10� The results from Table 2 are also shown on Sheet No. 4 along with the encountered soil profile at the test location. We recommend utilizing a factorof safety of 2 when usingthe k-value presented herein in the design of stormwater retention and detention facilities. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Our drillers observed the soil recovered from the SPT sampler and the augers, placed the recovered soil samples in moisture proof containers, and maintained a log for each boring. The recovered soil samples, along with the field boring logs, were transported to our Port St. Lucie soils laboratory where they were visually examined by AACE's project engineer to determine their engineering classification. The visual classification of the samples was performed in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, USCS. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -5- AACE File No. 18-151 Further, to aid in the visual classification of the soils, representative samples were selected for limited index laboratory testing, consisting of "percent fines" tests (defined as the percent, by dry weight, of soil passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, ASTM D114O), moisture content tests (ASTM D2216), and organic content tests (ASTM D2974). The soil classifications and other pertinent data obtained from our explorations and laboratory examinations and tests are reported on the soil profiles presented on Sheets No. 2-4. Finally, as requested, one sample of near -surface sands was collected from within the proposed apron area for the purpose of performing a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTM D1883) on the sample. The sample was obtained following removal of the upper 6 inches (±) of topsoil and was composited from a depth of about 6 inches to about 18 inches below grade. The result of the CBR test is included in Appendix II. 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 7.1 General Based on the findings of our site exploration, our evaluation of subsurface conditions, and judgment based on our experience with similar projects, we conclude that the soils underlying this site are generally satisfactory to supportthe proposed hangar and auxiliary building construction on conventional shallow foundations. However, in our opinion, the bearing capacity of the loose near -surface soils should be improved in order to reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation performance. The general soil improvement we recommend includes proofrolling the individual building sites site with a heavy vibratory roller. Following are specific recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation design, and pavement systems for the project. 7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations 7.2.1 Clearing The site surface should be cleared, grubbed and stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, trash, debris and former taxiway remnants. 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures Following clearing, the proposed building and pavement areas should be proofrolled with a 10 ton (minimum) vibratoryroller;any soft, yielding soils detected should be excavated and replaced with clean, compacted backfill that conforms with the recommendations below. Sufficient passes should be made during the proofrolling operations to produce dry densities not less than 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum dry density of the compacted material to depths of 2 feet below the compacted surface, or 2 feet below the bottom of footings, whichever is lower. In any case, the building and pavement areas should receive not less than 10 overlapping passes, half of them in each of two perpendicular directions. After the exposed surface has been proofrolled and tested to verify that the desired dry density has been obtained, the building and pavement areas may be filled to the desired grades. All fill material should conform to the recommendations below. It should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. Each layer should be compacted to a dry density not less than 95 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum value. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJEcr AACE File No. 18-151 Page -6- After completion of the general site preparations discussed above, the bottom of foundation excavations dug through the compacted natural ground, fill or backfill, should be compacted so as to densify soils loosened during or after the excavation process, or washed or sloughed into the excavation prior to the placement of forms. A vibratory, walk -behind plate compactor can be used for this final densification immediately priorto the placement of reinforcing steel, with previously described density requirements to be maintained below the foundation level. Following removal of foundation forms, backfill around foundations should be placed in lifts six inches or less in thickness, with each lift individually compacted with a plate tamper. The backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density. 7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation All fill material underthe buildings and pavementshould consist of clean sandsfree of organics and other deleterious materials. The fill material should have not more than 12 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and no particle larger than 3 inches in diameter. Backfill behind walls, if any, should be particularly pervious, with not more than 4 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. #200 sieve. During the excavation for the drydetention pond on the northern section of the site, the following soils will likely be encountered: • Organic topsoil is not considered suitable for use as any type of fill otherthan in landscaped areas, or other non-structural areas. Fine sands (SP) should be suitable to serve as fill soils and with proper moisture control should densify using conventional compaction equipment. Soils obtained from below the water table may require time to dry sufficiently. However, these materials should be suitable for relatively unrestricted use as fill and roadway embankment. Slightly clayeyfine sand (SP-SC) is suitable for structural fill, but will likely be more difficult to compact due to their inherent nature to retain excess soil moisture. If the use of slightly clayey soils is desired, it may be necessary to stockpile these soils in order for them to drain. Thinner lifts (perhaps 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness) may be required for placement and compaction of these soils. Further, it may become necessary to mix these soils with drier, cleaner granular sands prior to placement to increase the "workability" of these soils. Approximately half of our borings encountered a thin, near -surface layer of weakly cemented dark brown/brown fine sands with minor amounts of silt and organics, locally known as hardpan -type soils. This hardpan stratum may be significantly more cemented and hard in areas not explored. While hardpan is genera llysuitable for use asafill material, hardpan -type soils can be challenging for several reasons: Hardpan can be difficultto excavate, often requiring special equipment, especially in confined excavations such as utility trenches. Excavated hardpan -type soils are often boulder -size chunks of cemented soils which are not easily broken down for re -use as structural fill. When pulverized into fragments that can be compacted to an adequately dense matrix, the in -place soil often fails the relative compaction test because during laboratory preparation, the soil is pulverized into smaller particles, resulting in a denser laboratory matrix than that which occurs in the field. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -7- AACE File No. 18-151 With respect to the proposed stormwater retention pond, the hardpan -type soils are often relatively impervious and create a horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Consideration can be given to overexcavating such hardpan -type soils from within the proposed stormwater pond areas so as to facilitate a more rapid drainage, if needed. Backfill in the retention areas should consist of free -draining sandy materials with fines content less than 4 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The backfill should be placed in level lifts of 12-18 inches and receive some measure of compaction which likely can be accomplished by overlapping travel paths of loaded earthmoving equipment. The depth of this overexcavation will be dependent upon the pond design. 7.3 Building Foundation and Stab Design After the foundation soils have been prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable for supporting the proposed hangar building, water tank and pump house construction on conventional shallow foundations proportioned for an allowable bearing stress of 2,500 pounds per square foot [psfj, or less. To provide an adequate factor of safety against a shearing failure in the subsoils, all continuous foundations should be at least 18 inches wide, and all individual column footings should have a minimum width of 36 inches. Exterior foundations should bear at least 24 inches below adjacent outside final grades. Based upon the boring information and the assumed loading conditions, we estimate that the recommended allowable bearing stress will provide a minimum factor of safety in excess of two against bearing capacity failure. With the site prepared and the foundations designed and constructed as recommended, we anticipate total settlements of one inch or less, and differential settlement between adjacent similarly loaded footings of less than one -quarter of an inch. Because of the granular nature of the subsurface soils, the majority of the settlements should occur during construction; post -construction settlement should be minimal. We recommend that representatives of AACE inspect all footing excavations in orderto verify that footing bearing conditions are consistent with expectations. Foundation concrete should not be cast over a foundation surface containing topsoil or organic soils, trash of any kind, surface made muddy by rainfall runoff, or groundwater rise, or loose soil caused by excavation or other construction work. Reinforcing steel should also be clean at the time of concrete casting. If such conditions develop during construction, the reinforcing steel must be lifted out and the foundation surface reconditioned and approved by AACE. After the ground surface is proofrolled and filled, if necessary, as recommended in this report, the floor slab can be placed directly on the prepared subgrade. For design purposes, we recommend using a subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the compacted shallow sands. In our opinion, a highly porous base material is not necessary. We recommend to use a minimum of 10 mil polyolefin film as the main component of a vapor barrier system. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -8- AACE File No. 18-151 8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Flexible Pavement Design We recommend a standard -duty (20-year design life) pavement section consisting of an asphaltic concrete wearing surface on a calcareous base course supported on stabilized subbase over well - compacted subgrade. After clearing and proofrolling the site surface as previously recommended, the surficial soils should be suitable to support the pavement sections. The embankment material should be compacted to a dry density of 98 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 orAASHTO T-180) maximum dry density ofthe compacted soil to a depth of one foot below the surface. The subbase material to a depth of 12 inches should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 40 and it should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 or AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density. The surficial fine sand (SP) on this site does not appear to have the required LBR value and may require mixing. • The base course may consist of crushed limerock or coquina and should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 100. We recommend a base course at-least-8 inches -thick forstanclard pavements which.may_b_e placed and compacted.in a single layer: All base course material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend an FDOT Type S-1 asphaltic wearing surface. It should have a Marshall stability not less than 1000 pounds. We recommend a wearing surface 2 inches thick on standard pavement. Care must be exercised to place the asphalt over dry, well primed base material. The above recommendations should provide high qualityflexible pavement. If greater risk of more frequent pavement maintenance and repair is acceptable, then the above recommendations could be relaxed somewhat. We remain available for additional consultations relative to the desired pavement system. 8.2 Rigid Pavement Design Rigid pavements (for aircraft apron/taxiway, not runway) should have a similar embankment, subbase and base section as for the flexible pavement presented above (see Section 8.1). Note that it is assumed that a maximum aircraft tire contract pressure of 200 psi will be subjected to the rigid pavement. The base course surface should be saturated immediately prior to concrete placement to provide adequate moisture for curing of the concrete. We recommend an eight -inch thick pavement section of reinforced Portland cement concrete (reinforcement to be designed by others to control and provide for tensile capacity and load transfer between adjacent slabs). The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 5,000 psi. For the recommended concrete thickness, construction control joints should be placed no more than 15 feet apart in either direction and should be at least one -quarter of the thickness of the concrete. They should be cut as soon as the concrete will support the crew and equipment (8 to 12 hours). The concrete should be cured by moist curing or by application of a liquid curing compound. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -9- AACE File No. 18-151 9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING FREQUENCY We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program to verify that all site preparation and foundation and pavement construction is conducted in accordance with the appropriate plans and specifications. Materials testing and inspection services should be provided by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. An experienced engineering technician should monitor all stripping and grubbing efforts, and observe the proof -rolling operations to verify that the appropriate number of passes are applied to the subgrade. In -situ density tests should be conducted during filling activities and below all footings, floor slabs and pavement areas toverifythatthe required densities have been achieved. In -situ density values should be compared to laboratory Proctor moisture -density results for each of the different natural and fill soils encountered. Finally, we recommend inspecting and testing the construction materials for the foundations and other structural components. In Southeast Florida, earthwork testing is typically performed on an on -call basis when the contractor has completed a portion of the work. The test result from a specific location is only representative of a larger area if the contractor has used consistent means and methods and the soils and lift thicknesses are practically uniform throughout. The frequency of testing can be increased and full-time construction inspection can be provided to account for variations. We recommend that the following minimum testing frequencies be utilized: In proposed parkingareas,a minimum frequencyofone in -place density test for each 5,000 square feet of area should be used. The existing, natural ground should be tested to a depth of 12 inches at the prescribed frequency. Each 12-inch lift of fill, as well as the stabilized subgrade (where applicable) and base should be tested at this frequency. Drainage and utility pipingbackfill should betested at a minimum frequencyof one in -place density test for each 12-inch lift for each 200 lineal feet of pipe. Additional tests should be performed in backfill for manholes, structures, inlets, etc. In proposed structural areas, the minimum frequency of in -place density testing should be one test for each 2,000 square feet of structural area. In -place density testing should be performed at this minimum frequency for a depth of 2 feet below natural ground and for every 1-foot lift of fill placed in the structural area. In addition, density tests should be performed in each column footing for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing surface. For continuous or wall footings, density tests should be performed at a minimum frequency of one test for every 50 lineal feet of footing, and for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing surface. Representative samples of the various natural ground and fill soils, as well as stabilized subgrade (where applicable) and base materials should be obtained and transported to our laboratory for Proctor compaction tests. These tests will determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the materials tested and will be used in conjunction with the results of the in -place density tests to determine the degree of compaction achieved. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -10- AACE File No. 18-151 10.0 CLOSURE The geotechnical evaluation submitted herein is based on the data obtained from the soil boring and test profiles presented on Sheets No. 1 and 2, and our understanding of the project as previously described. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appendix Ill. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices for the exclusive use of AVCON, Inc. and St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for the subject project.. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We are pleased to be of assistance to you on this phase of your project. When we may be of further service to you or should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, ANDERSEN A Certificate of Peter G. An Principal Er Fla: Reg. Nc PGA/DPA:pa DRE C�QNSOI�I�YJIEPS, INC. No. 57966 _ * ;J T, " P.ESTATE Orr � ; -579j� `rS� ONAt. ;`\\��< 6 �> -�� David P. Andre, P.E. Principal Engineer - Fla. Reg. NO: 53969 - - Ve.b$ ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, WWINC.® W .AACEINC.COM USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 2017 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (1983 USES Quadrangle Map of "Fort Pierce, Florida") USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP SITE 9 1 19 20^4 LL G fit: pa C1L rio t �,•- u \ } K p i CR-608 FAST ,— jr 36 L M1 Section 29 Township 34 South Range 40 East O NOT TO SCALE ORANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 9A SWSvan Avenue. Pa"St. Luc[*. FL U999 "24079191 w Ju$k EInc.ccm USDA SOIL TYPES ON SUBJECT SITE (Source: USDA Web Soil Survey) 21: Lawnwood and Myakka sands GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION maven by: PGA Dam: SITE VICINITY MAPS TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA checked by: DPA D.W AAGE File No: 1&1e1 FIG s LEGEND rax Standard Penetration Test Boring ' EXaF m SFWMD Exfiltration Test ARC - Solid -Stem Auger Boring CBR X CBR Sample Location O —pl S NOT TO SCALE nv11. i Shown and noted field work locations are approximate. All fieldwork locations were located using the provided boundary and topographic survey, obtained aedal photographs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled GPS Instrument. Atmospheric disturbances and and local weather Conditions may affect the accuracy of the GPS instrument readings. As such, the shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree Implied by the method of measurement used. Figure No. 2 Source: Site Plan/Geoto,chnical Exhibit prepared by AVCON (dated March 2018) ® lie ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST IG.NTERNATIONALAIRPORT cne�k,a"PA oa : n.N. e l ONSWS.nAwnue,P.rI$LWCN,KMB3 naamstsl �wwAeeme.�m FIELD WORKILOCATION PLAN MRO HANGAR PROJECT CeMlloleol Auth.d.son Na]81W ST.WCIECOUNTT. FLORIDA AACE File No: IM51 Figure No.2 SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS (abbreviated version for project specific methods and soil conditions) GENERAL Orders nMam CeneuWnp EnOmeen,lac(MCE)6minpeevecOWsubaurbumndt4ons OW at M I—dom arlW end se One Ube dread. TMy peeve]. ro m/bmetl[n... ..... Hea. condltla- mwmebonomglMmonnoNa. Albutbramemmkood.euNu bl cae[. Me, NRer Mon Mwe abaaned In the wo pe may Nn.1ah. Wbu-MalloYd TM InMUYon npo:reJ u em boM D lope Y based u our dMla n' lope end c n vbu eunlm a emry a d eNbempbanaTh dl.Wbhamenan Me bps arrimmon and lrypuaimandany. Theactual Macmillan u Rom on... SO.Ma,mayMereradad.na mdmrthod, The prom conm,coach Oman on our bmMp lap. I. Me vabr lave] Un dcplm ahnme Is am bonh*k=nlwam MUIoa. ThnomWrNv@Mm Mvn onlMuenwdby MlWg pro[edune, aerycNDy In.... made hr worry MEMO NM bnbnitic arelnp mW. M cuwas ceNmJnatlm .1 prounowebr N.1 n 1.1m. MI. obundtlen q e u1NGl e commor l ons... FluquaUon.In yOunoaimr l0v01. MTupnox Meyarahoulo pa mmadmiM. TM.been[.ara not : mom HI level rcwrmr lap• Inxume Matra p t Met W r roam e...Me IS does not mow Mal pnundwaW vNl not He encounbmd el Met aoMOlwimn .t dame a1M, pW at In 11m0. SOUDSTEM AUGER BORINGS dwhcxdm IotM yo:uW atmlm m)aeauaa As (IMMmm)dlam.tuwnunuws%KIreymlager NM a aNnO had] at N eM 4.Dewed Fb Ne Bwlwd h 61M 11.6m) oaf bw. It b powewd O, tMwutdrOr10. Tmmr bmr wd4Y dmMgMeauOrourgb WmNML t tmmn0 S. TM adl umpe as WM,Mx. 6 awaalw In f ink eM reWeunbdw eomt6a *red In Mge on Had SM.. b Me MC E aNa mEmotay la Qaa&M1a W r and mend, IT rmwaury. STAN OARD PENLIMTIGN TEST The Lead. Penetntlm Test (MOT) Y a wNory ewpmd memos of In... m.... all munaatlon soils (AWN 61588} A plOal HUIM).12Mch (.pmm) OL..0.—. :mpW ovech.d W be eM alp egn,.1 MIAMI, We 1. ddwn 18 mcM. HOUR., Hr. Me nune oar euaw.we blues 0 e upgoune RIA NB) hemmerhul Ammon SO Icame 10.1em). TM umMrgNawe lb breach ohrcMe SMUMMIuWrege pml nle recogad. 1M Sum of We NWenpulnd WrpnshellonglW mktlla laoet tie Incnmed of UriRound aonepmYe Wall neullg Nnabl AMIMe Ye4UaeempmrY e NM lhominompld crossed Ia Mov vaeou..soll 1 n011Mnlo Mg oO..mpb. co mme"..U—NafMcom8comlelae NM varloue Boll Wounbe Jll-mi eood, memebelWbnMmgeamw4rbW.TMohms sa : nleY N-vmun W a puNlYtive beMpOon oleapdmtlryfor [alrwbNeu cope GaM.I.M.. SON: .1mrDmcrftdd. OWe Very]wee eb10 LOON 10b30 MmMandwee 3.N. an. Amu SO Nryacnu CON.N.BON: N-Value Dae� Ou Obi VeryeOb oeN's 033 b11p3LPe) EW4 8M 0331OO,SG m1100m 50 kPa) 4WS NeNum.NR 0s0tauft(W0100 LP.) e W 1. MOT IA 1. 2GWIT1E W Md M.) to W. Very WN 2.9 W AS Me(200 to ME mMQ Abwo 30 Nua ANdMm..Otx'Ndx e) . Mpnudso. M..' ..MI. lmmeex son"Imp Abnlenalmn.... .. coaupbmw N.m,r In soUgo. fen la dox...n eM nNnp, It wuery. Ahs., Me umpba an NaemaeawYu Pdx amnpa W m Mr. eua made. Is wdarm..am. me HImm.uMu[MM of Me ePW r dam,[meWI Mb or M., Road eMnlbn bebun se pMo. il.. M. am mummee In aumm— N ....11. In Me.. Roam. W[br Ycmncome im,mb 4wp e)d....uMnab>WCMe ed—MURCUScement IncearrommNMgmlam:old.ceb :MrmMIsp Jov.eoldpemNnnelnm do mombanMM MWWm llN mdbmM d .gene WwWend W noYm Mnu:webd W Ip nMuY.NMM. oaebrYnlmeentlud.IMPwaid XOwnNm Med WIY G.M.n. Me nb W Wmpinpvm4r.wrdedtl Mg4:Webell ntlnu4 W emW q mmW., raawnv W mamxwwnm , IMowroarTEmup-nl0oa E m amens. Roam. l[ No MCEa ans eierst,MWommose orr:.SM�n whadoam or.m,.Ma. �xeaenloeba[uaeMeom [ndMNY0.M1w naaure9mmenne... 1N��1neuY No umuanmeex b,Fpma[u Wee pmeNNim:ZNXnlreeampmw pna[W deuMNauueeMmdeMer WaWWe inµ bPneemN[naePe/meleWe.Ryu Wea {mW neb[w[NMWenwM1LMe.dm[Npmmelwan[nW kp.anmeeduwn Mu[Imanutl uwweune me[.are[nnvMN[JAeFYn.o a Dap aWxWlbnNwmm�aMpnnle[neoeambn W nMd WIaN..tlk.LLm.Y.bml ..x,].n N.baeeud anrl.aJmmJprxMureM PROJECT NOTES: THE PROJECT DOLL DEDCWMN PRCCEDN2 FOR BOOMEAST Fl9]®A use xN IN A.. UnnYd em CNeelhetlan dunes DOULOSM. DI]' We Mem..a c... I . n•Ne Mmi TO lr nor emm: ,,,a—. yr U. cam) to a -In cad nne dr...I: Raw 0.m sms, a W e m.-(I. rmn) - amm.. elaw.l Ica trecn x%.a— w�evY �pnvxyleM4mnn4xnunwn,rul DAHOB: ME."AmE Su r. Hs wo inf µcal am-m. to Xa'a P mm1).Nn RNE 8M ic, N. pW 01 Pat MA1. IN Ra w HIS it.)Nne ps'ders 1NMNN: D.a% mmmngwaYb.cnyJm I. T.p.a% aa%.nmv .,LT., .xw",yar,ame .ILWORBRry Rea III CLLtturN O.MR ur: nOR B.I y Wrot ...nme .Resin nWypunaacer) WMr m ;.:Mh .danr,.aN. 01.11OVA IN n%.nry TMm.m an u.wnvwrralmeagsrwlYl.aml mmnw. Ho'sm-,Rowe Nepuamor wnmuaue matlnp is don by MCEMm Bh aepMewOomemwa ewuml6bflNYpnq the eallaNnpuh. a. TM Nmhom. an eaven<ealo Me mJabvalmne oar raurvanllNa MMe o min Cmme G.upM.AdNctln. almorkalan N cung be wing Nwulamen p Guldrenwve We wnbpe and hold Me fine ONm In .-S. UOuderm oford. BUAbm MmIsmlon TM Wcmalme Rule, wnNnmcanmmmel®nemua.m.mou..emL.w M. fA bx epnrnaRwo ae+.Mamence fmahmmaru GOle own Wowa Me Manor cable by meterammarwm a an excess hym pn.aure mWw din ee. mden a anYlen. Ws, In am. am Pe deposit. mem Ismr Nahlr Pern mou. pa. PlEba ilea eaemM a most Oryanmav"faw driver to lox abov.unt.Wa deM to a..P Me Mle own enym Pmeq Mel a.. 0 omaMcNvloy OlmmWgfluld. Meapmmgollangamea bann9a,MeGM Ie YaP\0ryn unMaetodr emm Oreanm em pho anundwamr bnl IS nwrE.d. The hold]. Men coded W MaWIUm, ON, WM.¢umubYd "Most CR'Sm, mtllnGs or man nm..a ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GNSWSNan Ammus,PeGSLLmche,FL3aBG3 7724074191 mmwAACEMc.cont GENERAL NOTES Ce Ubmal bfAUIM USUMI No.26M TB—/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586) AB-j AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) EX—/ SFWND SOIL HMRAUUC CONDUCRVITY (OFILMITON) TEST N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER MOT E 6� GROEND OF ATRER INO ABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED BIS BELOW LAND SURFACE SP, SP—SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS] USCS GROUPS DETERMINED BY VISUAL CLASSIFICATION EXCEPT FOR NOTED LABORATORY TESTS MC NATURAL MOISFURE CONTENT IN PERCENT (ASTM D2216) —200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SITE EPERCMT FINES] (ASTM D1140) OC ORGANIC CONTENT (ASTN 2974) DRILL CREW FIRM: FIN @ MCE DRILL CREW CHIEF: PT DRILL RIG: MOBILE B-57 AND DIETRICH D-25 DRILLING METHOD: ROTARY—WASH/BENTONRE SLURRY CASING: NOT NEEDED HAMMER TYPE: SAFETY/MANUAL BORINGS ADVANCED W. HAND AUGER 0-4r IN ALL BORINGS FOR UTIUTY CLEARANCE GRAPHICAL LEGEND: TOPSOIL FINE SAND (SP) FINE SAND (SPAW. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS () HARDPAN —TYPE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 1 Dwxn lry:PGA DOW: MW2015 TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CN. db,':DPA Do1.:M.r201B MRO HANGAR PROJECT gpCE III. Np:1&131 Sheet NO. 1 ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA TB-1 DATE: 05/0 N 5 Is I. T11-2 TB-31 TB-4 TB-5 /1B 'DAN; 05/01/18 GAZE• 05/02/15 DATE: 05/02/18 DATE: 05/02/18 .............. ....,....... .............. _.... .........IN I ' ... ........ , . " ..... p TOPSOIL . . _„ ..... .. TOPsoiL E ... TOPsO(L ,. ._. TOPBDIL TOPSOIL GRAY EWE SANG (SP), GRAY FINE SAND (SP) < BUY ME SAND (SP) ?. - � < ;.. DR. GRAY/GRAY FINE SAND (SP) < :c:: GRAY ME SAND (SP) DR. BROWN ME SAND (SP) m m REDDISH BROWN WEAKLY COIENIEO Sy i i DK. BROWN/REOD SN-BRAWN DK. BRAWN/REDDISH-BROWN �a, DR. BROWN WEAKLY CaDIrzO FINE SAND (SP), 7/0 SILT AND O0.GANIC5 NANDPAN-TYP BROWN ME BAUD (SP) S>_� FINE SANG (SP) .: FINE SAND. (SP) Via FINE SAID (SP). 7/0 SILT AND ORGANICS DPAN-TYP MAN.. q... [.. q... :. ...... .; .... .... .. .SGIT .. .. 5 NCl Ll TAN SL CLAY" ME SAND (SP—SC) ^ DN BROWN FINE SAND (SP) � S ] :: I ] ' : ii [YSANDC(SP—SC) uu v ] TAN SL CUM FINE SAID (SP—SC) TAN FINE SAND (SP) u R GRNE SAND (SP), 1 I—ORAY FINT/O CLAY - TAN/LT. BROWN RNE sA0 (sP) _.. ..., _ .,,. BROWN/DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ................................. ...............................:. REDMSX—BROWN ME SAND (SP) BROWN FINE SAND (SP) iAN FINE SAND (SP) DR. BROWN SAND (SP) I ................................... ...... ... .......... I....... I...... BROWN/DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) BROWN/UK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) REDDISH —BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .......... .. .............. NE SAND (SP) ........ REDDISH —BROWN FINE SAND (SP) I BROWN ME SAND (SP) i GRAY FINE SAND (SP), T/0 SMELL MGM SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: ■ TOPSOIL TR-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ISPT] BORING (ASTM DISH) AS-# AUGER BORING (AM D1452) 0 FINE SAND (SP) N -# SPT D HYDRAULIC BLOWS PER PCNOY (ERFlLTRATION) TEST ® OT EINE SAND;SF2) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS (r,Dg� ENDGROUNDWATER BORING TABLE (RI BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME GRILLED LHARDPAN— P Ba BELOW LAND SURFACE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) SP, SP-SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS] i TAN/LT. BROWN SAND (SP) TAN/LT. BROWN SAID UP) .................... . . ....... 111 ................. ........--11115 REDDISN—BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 1 ................................... REDNSH—BROWN FINE SAND (SP) DR. GRAY FINE SAND (SP) GRAY FINE SAND (SP) BLS E08 O 30' BLS ® ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. GEGTEGNNIGAL ENGINEER NG EVALUATION Rm•n nv:r n Nnm: m=y=n+n l SOIL BORING PROFILES TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT cmckaa by: DPA GAN:Nry261B BDCSWSW%.Amnuq Poast Lu.M,FL5A9B0 7724H71191 wwwAACEI.c . MRO HANGAR PROJECT camnum ofAXNOamtlon No.28TRA ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA AACE FIIn No: 18.151 Sheet No.2 TB-6 DATE: 05/o 0 r......�. N 5 �...". 25 F..... TB-7 DATE: 05/0 �YoP'shiL'.......................... N AP .. GUY NNE SAND (SP) .. � ... .. TAN/LT. BROWN ME SAND (SP) .... I ............................. REDDISH BROWN NNE SAND (SP) BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 7 TB-8 TB-9 T13-10 1/I8 DATE: 05/01/18 DAME 05/01/18 DAIS: 05/01/18 ................ ......................... ....................... ................... 0 rc I N YOPBbN E SAND ..' YOPSGN E YOPSUIL g YDPSOIL GRAY FINE SAND (SP) ':i': GRAY NNE SAND (SP) a '.};:CMY FlNE SWD (SP)GRAY/OK. GRAY RNE SAND (SP) DR. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWN ca '::;:: DR. BROWN/REDUISH-BROWN FlNE SAND (SP) "" RNE SAND (SP)iPii:NN 6ROWN/REDDGH-BROWN;!(:, ME SN DR KLY CEYOIFD OWN WFABROWR fwE SANG (SP)., ,,, ,,,,,,,.. 2fRNE SAND (SPJ RNL SAND (SP), T/0 SILT 'T/D RObTB ............ .•.•....•.••..•..••..•.. •...•.....•.BROWN NNE SWO•(SF)•...••.. Nh 20 ..AND GRGANIGS DMRDPAN-YTPL]... 9 LT. GFAY SL CLAYEY -2w: 5 RNE SAND (SP-SC) LT. GRAY RNE SAID (SP), a: e 7 ; ,.T/O CLAY AND ROOTS DK. BROWN NNE SAND (SP) TO NNE SAND (SP) ..........:.........................::i.................................. ...: TW NNE SAND (SP) ................................... ::tial...... ....... ......... ......... BROWN/DK. BRBWN FINE SAND (SP) .................... I........... REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) GRAY/TAN NNE SAND (SP) ...................... ..... 10 NNE SL cLAYEy NNE SAND (SP-SC) TAN R N E SAND (SP) IS BROWN RN[ SANO (SP) ........................................... ..................._............................... ......... ........ 120 REDDISH -BROWN NNE SAND (SP) '6;F................................................................................................_...... 29 30 1- ................................................................................................................................................................................................... I.........J 30 SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: ■ TOPSOIL TB-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTLI D1586) AB-/ AUGER .BORING (ASTM D1452) FINE SAND SP EX-y SFWND SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EEFILTRATION) TEST ( ) N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT FINE SAND (SPl) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS GROUNDWATER TABLE (R BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED L TV E EO1LS END OF BORING HARDPAN- P BELOWLs SP, SP-SC,Eft: LASURFACE ED SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) UNIFIEDSOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IUSCS] GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Dnwn by: PGA Dale: May 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CheckWby: DPA Dab: May 2018 SMSWSMMAvenu% Pan St Lucia, FLN983 n24OTa1B1 WWaiA Sba<em SOIL BORING PROFILES IRO HANGAR PROJECT cmHncaleoIAu omauonNa,2e794 I I ST.LUCIECOUNTY. FLORIDA AACEFile Na: 1M51 Sheet No. 3 TO NNE SAND (SP) ..........:.........................::i.................................. ...: TW NNE SAND (SP) ................................... ::tial...... ....... ......... ......... BROWN/DK. BRBWN FINE SAND (SP) .................... I........... REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) GRAY/TAN NNE SAND (SP) ...................... ..... 10 NNE SL cLAYEy NNE SAND (SP-SC) TAN R N E SAND (SP) IS BROWN RN[ SANO (SP) ........................................... ..................._............................... ......... ........ 120 REDDISH -BROWN NNE SAND (SP) '6;F................................................................................................_...... 29 30 1- ................................................................................................................................................................................................... I.........J 30 SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: ■ TOPSOIL TB-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTLI D1586) AB-/ AUGER .BORING (ASTM D1452) FINE SAND SP EX-y SFWND SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EEFILTRATION) TEST ( ) N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT FINE SAND (SPl) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS GROUNDWATER TABLE (R BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED L TV E EO1LS END OF BORING HARDPAN- P BELOWLs SP, SP-SC,Eft: LASURFACE ED SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) UNIFIEDSOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IUSCS] GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Dnwn by: PGA Dale: May 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CheckWby: DPA Dab: May 2018 SMSWSMMAvenu% Pan St Lucia, FLN983 n24OTa1B1 WWaiA Sba<em SOIL BORING PROFILES IRO HANGAR PROJECT cmHncaleoIAu omauonNa,2e794 I I ST.LUCIECOUNTY. FLORIDA AACEFile Na: 1M51 Sheet No. 3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Dnwn by: PGA Dale: May 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CheckWby: DPA Dab: May 2018 SMSWSMMAvenu% Pan St Lucia, FLN983 n24OTa1B1 WWaiA Sba<em SOIL BORING PROFILES IRO HANGAR PROJECT cmHncaleoIAu omauonNa,2e794 I I ST.LUCIECOUNTY. FLORIDA AACEFile Na: 1M51 Sheet No. 3 AB-1 AB-2 Ex-1 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/02/18 0 .................4r.---.-1LT. idPsbll:.......................................... tdisDli............................................................, YDpidd.................................... p LIMY nNC GWO (SP), aEhoo:ei :' GMY TIME BANG (SP), :;:' GRAY TIRE SANG (BP) T/O Ram ::; TIC ROOTS LY CEEMENTED BROWN �T/O DR. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) YG K1 UK. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED RNE SAND (SP), T/O. SILT ANDIORGOOCS (NAROPAN-TYPE) - W w FINE SAND (SPDR. SUJ AND ORGANICS [HARDPAN-TYPq ................. ...,................................... -ROW.B .. IX:a : ............................................................ BROWN FlNC SAND (SP)'B0.oWM'nNE'$AND(SP)......................... ,ti, 5 REGDISH-BROWN NNE SAND (SP) I EOB 0 8' BLSUOREFN-ORAY LT. GRAY 54 CLAYEY nNE SAND (BP -Sp) -11 u SL CUM NNE SAND (SP-SC) SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: ■ TOPSOIL AB-# STANDABORIND TRATI p1 TEST 92) [SFT1 BORING (ASTM D1589) AUGERFINE SAND SP Ex-/ SHYING SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXRLTRATION) TEST ( ) H SIFT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT ® EINE SAND TY(SP1W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS GROUNDWATER TABLE (TT; BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED HARDPAN —PE B BELOWFLANDI ) NG SURFACE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) SP, SP-SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS] TEST SUMMARY (EX-1): ................ 0 -3.......... = 3.6x10 CFS d = 0.5 FT Hz = 4.5 FT Ds = 1.5 FT K = 1.3x10 4 CW'SQFT - FT HEAD We recommend using a Factor of Safely of 2 when using this value In the design of drainage Improvements. .............. EXFILTRATION TEST CONFIGURATION (NM To Scal.) - SHYING K EKFILTRATION TESTS HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 0 STAMUZED FLOW RAZE d DIAMETER OF TEST HOLE HE HYDROSTATIC COLUMN DS SATURATED HOLE DEPTH (BY GAT) NOTE: IF 0, G'M NOT ENCOUNTERED _ Wa x Wd( +WHA4+HZd) ..............�is I ® ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. ueu TREASURE LenumeNwnuevnLUnNUN tco.:nnr:. D -•r:..•r ••:= l SOIL BORING PROFILES AND TREASGHNIUAbN IN RNATIONALAI Bu cnnLkee ny:DPA De1e: Mny Oole MSWBWan AV.num.PoNSLLUcl%FLNB8] UM074191 www.AACNnr.cem EXFILTRAT16N TEST RESULT MRO HANGAR PROJECT Certificate of AuNomeden No. 987B1 1 ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLORIDA AACE Hie No: 18.151 Sheet No.4 APPENDIX I USDA Soil Survey Information 2P DN'N 2 S2TN s Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (TCIA ) p D°29'33"N yM_ M yN' M y� M y� M yb M 55910 5ffiB] 5@7N 65m 5mm EBS00 5R9a] 5]20 66m 5M140 3 3 Map Sole: 1:2,680 if parted on A landsope (il" x &5") sheet. Metes ,nN1 0 35 70 140 210 ry Feet 0 10D 200 400 WO Mapprojaton:Web Mmztor CM Coadiraus:WGS94 Edgetla:UlMZora17NWGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (TCIA ) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) iq Spoil Area The sail surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Q Area of Interest (AOI) Stony Spot 1:24,000. Soils Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Q Sail Map Unit Polygons tr Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause ,y Sail Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of ■ Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed •- Special Line Features Special Point Features scale. V Blowout Water Features ,-.-, Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 0 Closed Depression t-t-r Web Soil Survey URL: N Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator • Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts ,y distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Landfill„1 ,. Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more A. Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Background !yy Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. �i Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger. + Saline Spat Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar 20, 2017 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor ® Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. iy Slide or Slip Sodic Spot USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO 21 Lawnwood and Myakka sands 30.3 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 30.3 100.0% TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida St. Lucie County, Florida 21—Lawnwood and Myakka sands Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol. ljpvg Elevation: 20 to 200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period: 350 to 365 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Lawnwood and similar soils. 40 percent Myakka and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lawnwood Setting Landform: Marine terraces on flatwoods Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material. Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 8 inches: sand E - 8 to 28 inches: sand Bhl - 28 to 52 inches: sand Bh2 - 52 to 58 inches: sand C - 58 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 31 inches to ortstein Natural drainage class: Poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding. None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0 Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands --St. Lucie County, Florida Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) Hydric soil rating:, No Description of Myakka Setting Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Taff Downslope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Parentmaterial. Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: sand E - 7 to 27 inches., sand Bh - 27 to 38 inches: sand C - 38 to 80 inches. sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Poorly drained - -- - —Runoff c/ass:-High---- - -- - — - - Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding. None Frequency of ponding. None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0 Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Forage suitability group. Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ankona Percent of map unit., 7 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Taff Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 513/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida Electra Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, rises on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Internuve Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Waveland Percent of map unit. 6 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5132018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX II CBR Test Result wood. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULTS 115 113 a a •y 111 C N 2, 109 O 107 105 5 100.0 80.0 v A 60.0 W 40.0 m U 20.0 0.0 Moisture vs. Density 7 9 11 Moisture Content (%) Moisture vs. CBR Value 13 15 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moisture Content (%) Material Description: Brown Fine SAND I Test Results Optimum Moisture (%): Maximum Dry Density (pcf): Maximum CBR Value: 053-at.100" deflection ("91Me ) Maximum CBR Value: at.200" deflection r NAME: TCIA MRO Hangar Project PROJECT NO.: 6738.16.5485 AACE DATE TESTED: 515/2018 No.: CBR#1 TESTMETHOD: AST,M4 N: SL Lucie County, FL PERFORMED BY: C. A ryirrn w No. 83829 118 * STATE OF Florida ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS GENERAL Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) borings describe subsurface conditions only at the locations drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no information about subsurface conditions below the bottom of the boreholes. At locations not explored, surface conditions that differ from those observed in the borings may exist and should be anticipated. The information reported on our boring logs is based on our drillers' logs and on visual examination in our laboratory of disturbed soil samples recovered from the borings. The distinction shown on the logs between soil types is approximate only. The actual transition from one soil to another may be gradual and indistinct. The groundwater depth shown on our boring logs is the water level the driller observed in the borehole when it was drilled. These water levels may have been influenced by the drilling procedures, especially in borings made by rotary drilling with bentonitic drilling mud. An accurate determination of groundwater level requires long-term observation of suitable monitoring wells. Fluctuations in groundwater levels throughout the year should be anticipated. The absence of a groundwater level on certain logs indicates that no groundwater data is available. It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that boring location at some other point in time. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a widely accepted method of in situ testing of foundation soils (ASTM D-1586). A 2-foot (0.6m) long, 2-inch (50mm) O.D. split-barrell sampler attached to the end of a string of drilling rods is driven 24 inches (0.60m) into the ground by successive blows of A 140-pound (63.5 Kg) hammer freely dropping 30 inches (0.76m). The number of blows needed for each 6 inches (0.15m) increments penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for penetration of the middletwo 6-inch (0.15m) increments of penetration constitutes thetest result of N-value. After the test, the sampler is extracted from the ground and opened to allow visual description of the retained soil sample. The N-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties allowing a conservative estimate of the behavior of soils under load. The following tables relate N-values to a qualitative description of soil density and, for cohesive soils, an approximate unconfined compressive strength (Qu): Cohesionless Soils: N-Value Description 0 to Very loose 4 to 10 Loose 10 to 30 Medium dense 30 to 50 Dense Above50 Very dense Cohesive Soils: N-Value Description QU 0 to 2 Very soft Below 0.25 tsf (25 kPa) 2 to 4 soft 0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa) 4 to 8 Medium stiff 0.50 to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 kPa) 8 to 15 stiff 1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa) 15 to 30 Very stiff 2.0 to 4.0 tsf (200 to 400 kPa) Above 30 Hard Above 4.0 tsf (400 kPa) The tests are usually performed at 5 foot (1.5m) intervals. However, more frequent or continuous testing is done by AACE through depths where a more accurate definition of the soils is required. The test holes are advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting bit, using circulating fluid to remove the cuttings and hold the fine grains in suspension. The circulating fluid, which is bentonitic drilling mud, is also used to keep the hole open below the water table by maintaining an excess hydrostatic pressure inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly highly pervious ones, flush -coupled casing must be driven to just above the testing depth to keep the hole open and/or prevent the loss of circulating fluid. After completion of a test borings, the hole is kept open until a steady state groundwater level is recorded. The hole is then sealed by backfilling, either with accumulated cuttings or lean cement. Representative split -spoon samples from each sampling interval and from different strata are brought to our laboratory in air -tight jars for classification and testing, if necessary. Afterwards, the samples are discarded unless prior arrangement have been made. POWER AUGER BORINGS Auger borings (ASTM D-1452) are used when a relatively large, continuous sampling of soil strata close to the ground surface is desired. A4-inch (100 mm) diameter, continuous flight, helical auger with a cutting head at its end is screwed into the ground in 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It is powered by the rotary drill rig. The sample is recovered by withdrawing the auger our of the ground without rotating it. The soil sample so obtained, is classified in the field and representative samples placed in bags orjars and returned to the AACE soils laboratory foe classification and testing, if necessary. HAND AUGER BORINGS Hand auger borings are used, if soil conditions are favorable, when the soil strata are to be determined within a shallow (approximately 5-foot [1.5m]) depth or when access is not available to power drilling equipment. A 3-inch (75mm) diameter hand bucket auger with a cutting head is simultaneously turned and pressed into the ground. The bucket auger is retrieved at approximately 6-inch (0.15m) interval and its contents emptied for inspection. On occasion post - hole diggers are used, especially in the upper 3 feet (1m) or so. Penetrometer probings can be used in the upper 5 feet (1.5m) to determine the relative density of the soils. The soil sample obtained is described and representative samples put in bags orjars and transported to the AACE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary. UNDISTURBED SAMPLING Undisturbed sampling (ASTM D-1587) implies the recovery of soil samples in a state as close to their natural condition as possible. Complete preservation of in situ conditions cannot be realized; however, with careful handling and proper sampling techniques, disturbance during sampling can be minimized for most geotechnical engineering purposes. Testing of undisturbed samples gives a more accurate estimate of in situ behavior than is possible with disturbed samples. Normally, we obtain undisturbed samples by pushing 2.875-inch (73 mm) I.D., thin wall seamless steel tube 24 inches (0.6 m) into the soil with a single stoke of a hydraulic ram. The sampler, which ris a Shelby tube, is 30 (0.8 m) inches long. After the sampler is retrieved, the ends are sealed in the field and it is transported to our laboratory for visual description and testing, as needed. ROCK CORING In case rock strata is encountered and rockstrerigth/continuity/composition information is needed for foundation or mining purposes, the rock can be cored (ASTM D-2113) and 2-inch to 4-inch diameter rock core samples be obtained for further laboratory analyses. The rock coring is performed through flush -joint steel casing temporarily installed through the overburden soils above the rock formation and also installed into the rock. The double- or triple -tube core barrels are advanced intothe rocktypically in 5-foot intervals and then retrieved to the surface. The barrel is then opened so that the core sample can be extruded. Preliminary field measurements of the recovered rock cores include percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values. The rock cores are placed in secure core boxes and then transported to our laboratory for further ---- ----------- ---- — -- - - - --- inspection an testing, as nee e SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS In order to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the upper soils, constant head or falling head exfiltration tests can be performed. These tests are performed in accordance with methods described in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Permit Information Manual, Volume IV. In brief, a 6 to 9 inch diameter hole is augered to depths of about 5 to 7 feet; the bottom one foot is filled with 57-stone; and a 6-foot long slotted PVC pipe is lowered into the hole. The distance from the groundwater table and to the ground surface is recordedand the hole is then saturated for 10 minutes with the water level maintained at the ground surface. If a constant head test is performed, the rate of pumping will be recorded at fixed intervals of 1 minute for a total of 10 minutes, following the saturation period. LABORATORY TEST METHODS Soil samples returned to the AACE soils laboratory are visually observed by a geotechnical engineer or a trained technician to obtain more accurate description of the soil strata. Laboratory testing is performed on selected samples as deemed necessary to aid in soil classification and to help define engineering properties of the soils. The test results are presented on the soil boring logs at the depths at which the respective sample was recovered, except that grain size distributions or selected other test results may be presented on separate tables, figures or plates as discussed in this report. THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES The soil descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual -manual procedures in accordance with local practice. Soil classification is performed in general accordance with the United Soil Classification System and is also based on visual -manual procedures. BOULDERS (>12" (300 MMl) and COBBLES (3" (75 MMl TO 12" (300 MMI): GRAVEL: Coarse Gravel: Fine Gravel: Descriptive adjectives 0-5% 5-15% 15 - 29% 30 - 49% SANDS: 3/4" (19 mm) to 3" (75 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve to 3/4" (19 mm) — no mention of gravel in description — trace — some —gravelly (shell, limerock, cemented sands) COARSE SAND: No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve to No. 4' (4.75 mm) Sieve MEDIUM SAND: No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve to No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve FINE SAND: No. 200 (75 µm) Sieve to No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve Descriptive adiectives 0-5% 5-15% 15-29% 30-49% SILT CLAY: < #200(751M) Sieve SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4 SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 s PI <_ 7 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7 — no mention of sand in description —trace —some —sandy Descriptive adiectives: <- 5% —clean (no mention of silt or clay in description) 5 -15% —slightly 16 - 35% — clayey, silty, or silty clayey 36-49% —very ORGANIC SOILS: Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Classification 0 - 2.5% Usually no mention of See Above organics in description 2.6 - 5% slightly organic add "with organic fines" to group name 5 - 30% organic SM with organic fines Organic Silt (OL) Organic Clay (OL) Organic Silt (OH) r THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES Organic Clay (OH) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS AND MATTER: Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Classification 30 - 75% sandy peat Peat (PT) silty peat Peat (PT) > 75% amorphous peat Peat (PT) fibrous peat Peat (PT) STRATIFICATION AND STRUCTURE: Descriptive Term Thickness with interbedded seam — less than% inch (13 mm) thick layer -- h to 12-inches (300 mm) thick stratum -- more than 12-inches (300 mm) thick pocket - - - - — small, erratic deposit, usually less than-1-foot lens -- lenticular deposits occasional — one or less per foot of thickness frequent — more than one per foot of thickness calcareous — containing calcium carbonate (reaction to diluted HCL) hardpan — spodic horizon usually medium dense marl — mixture of carbonate clays, silts, shells and sands ROCK CLASSIFICATION (FLORIDA) CHART: Symbol Typical Description LS Hard Bedded Limestone or Caprock WLS Fractured or Weathered Limestone LR Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture) SLS Stratified Limestone and Soils THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS N: Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches R: Refusal(Iessthansixinchesadvanceofthesplitspoonafter50hammerblows) MC: Moisture content (percent of dry weight) OC: Organic content (percent of dry weight) PL: Moisture content at the plastic limit LL: Moisture content at the liquid limit PI: Plasticity index (LL-PL) qu: Unconfined compressive strength (tons per square foot, unless otherwise noted) -200: Percent passing a No. 200 sieve (200 wash) +40: Percent retained above a No. 40 sieve US: Undisturbed sample obtained with a thin -wall Shelby tube k: Permeability (feet per minute, unless otherwise noted) DD: Dry density (pounds per cubic foot) TW: Total unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) APPENDIX III AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. (revised January 24, 2007) Project Limitations and Conditions Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made herein. Further, the report, in all cases, is subject to the following limitations and conditions: VARIABLE/UNANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The engineering analysis, evaluation and subsequent recommendations presented herein are based on the data obtained from our field explorations, at the specific locations explored on the dates indicated in the report. This report does not reflect any subsurface variations (e.g. soil types, groundwater levels, etc.) which may occur adjacent or between borings. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction/excavation commences. In the event such variations are encountered, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. may find it necessary to (1) perform additional subsurface explorations, (2) conduct in -the -field observations of encountered variations, and/or re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. We at Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc, recommend that the project specifications necessitate the contractor immediately notifying Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc., the owner and the design engineer (if applicable) if subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those presented in this report. No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those expected in the plans and specifications, or presented in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. of such differing site conditions. Additionally, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by an Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. representative. SOIL STRATA CHANGES Soil strata changes are indicated by a horizontal line on the soil boring profiles (boring logs) presented within this report. However, the actual strata's changes may be more gradual and indistinct. Where changes occur between soil samples, the locations of the changes must be estimated using the available information and may not be at the exact depth indicated. SINKHOLE POTENTIAL Unless specifically requested in writing, a subsurface exploration performed by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential. r 0 MISINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION REPORT Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is responsible forthe conclusions and recommendations presented herein, based upon the subsurface data obtained during this project. If others render conclusions or opinions, or make recommendations based upon the data presented in this report, those conclusions, opinions and/or recommendations are not the responsibility of Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared to assist the owner, architect and/or civil engineer in the design of the subject project. If any changes in the construction, design and/or location of the structures as discussed in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not be valid. All such changes in the project plans should be made known to Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. for our subsequent re-evaluation. USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS Bidders who are reviewing this report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared to assist the owners and project designers. Bidders should coordinate their own subsurface explorations (e.g.; soil borings, test pits, etc.) for the purpose of determining any conditions that may affect construction operations. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. -- -cannot-be held responsible for any -interpretations made _using this report -or -the attached boring _ logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which may affect construction operations. IN -THE -FIELD OBSERVATIONS Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. attempts to identify subsurface conditions, including soil stratigraphy, water levels, zones of lost circulation, "hard" or "soft" drilling, subsurface obstructions, etc. However, lack of mention in the report does not preclude the presence of such conditions. LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS Users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. to attempt to locate any man-made, underground objects duringthe course of this exploration, and that no attempts to locate any such objects were performed. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction. PASSAGE OF TIME This report reflects subsurface conditions that were encountered at the time/date indicated in the report. Significant changes can occur at the site during the passage of time. The user of the report recognizes the inherent risk in using the information presented hereinafter a reasonable amount of time has passed. We recommend the user of the report contact Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. with any questions or concerns regarding this issue. Geolechnical Engineeping Report —, Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it And no one —not evenyou—should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geolechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on Me construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Thegeotechnica/ r engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering repot. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what -they provide forbid preparation.. To help prevent costly problems; give can= tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest tee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize [heir own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Gooenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g.,-about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental reportprepared for some- one else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus -on keeping building surfaces dry - While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rellb on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnclal Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFF/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EAamt exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFETHE GEOPROFIESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesvi Ile Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:3011589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe:org vwaw.asfe.org Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is stdctly prohibded, except with ASFE's Specific w6ffen permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted any with the express written permission OfASFE, and only for purposes ofscholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be cvmmifing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER03135.0MRP AACE File No. 18-151 June 28, 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental Consulting AVCON, Inc. 5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32822 Attention: Luca DelVerme, P.E. HELICAL PILE TENSION CAPACITY TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA In accordance with your request and authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) has completed additional geotechnical engineering analyses for the above referenced project. Based on your correspondence, we understand that uplift reactions on a number of the proposed shallow foundations exceed the deadweight of the foundations, and it is desired to incorporate helical piles into the foundation design. We further understand that the required ultimate uplift/tension, capacity of the helical piles are on the order of 40 kips per pile. For this purpose, we recommend utilizing a 2-inch souare pile section with a triple helix configuration on the lead section consisting of 12-inch. 14-inch and 16-inch helices. If installed to depths of 30 feet below grade, such piles should yield ultimate tension bearing capacities of 40 kips each. The helical pile capacity was determined using our previously completed soil borings and the pile design software HeliCAP which was developed for Hubbell's Chance Helical Pile Foundation Systems. .The minimum center to center spacing of the piles should be at least 4 times the diameter of the largest helix. The recommended helical pile should only be utilized for resisting vertical tension loads. Should the hangar foundation design require helical piles to assist with resisting compression loads, additional deeper borings will need to be completed to provide sufficient soil information for their design. Further, it is not recommended to use square pile sections for compression loads. The pile capacities of the helical piles should be verified in the field by monitoring the torque applied to each pile during the installation procedure. The minimum required installation torque for the recommended pile configuration is 4,300 ft-lbs. The Helical Pile Contractor should provide evidence of a recently calibrated digital torque indicator device (using shear pins or mechanical torque indicators is not recommended). Based on our experience, additional pile extensions should be readily available during the installation to accommodate localized changes in the soil stratigraphy. The helical pile installation should be monitored by AACE representatives. Please note that many other combinations of helical anchorshafts and diameters exist. The recommended helical piles may not be the most cost-effective combination, and no attempt was made to optimize the design. We remain available for additional consultations with respect to the helical pile design. - We are pleased to be of assistance to you on this phase of your project. When we may be of further service to you or sh,�o\ulc��y�a-11h�M��lp{��j� uestions, please contact us. RS ANDERSEN,0W\IL�J�C;TJ N X44*97tIY,!6 WEERS, INC. FILE COPY 51956 — Or Peter G tsen,itT� ; Principal roc, Fla. Reg. Qi.SG: ORIOP �b\\\� 834 SW �d?N/56r \�u\cle, Florida 34983 ��111111\� David P. Andre, P.E. Principal Engineer Fla. Reg, No. 53969 11"lJ$ Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com AACE File No. 18-151 June 28, 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental consulting AVCON, Inc. 5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32822 Attention: Luca DelVerme, P.E. HELICAL PILE TENSION CAPACITY TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA In accordance with your request and authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) has completed additional geotechnical engineering analyses for the above referenced project. Based on your corresponderice, we understand that uplift reactions on a number of the proposed shallow foundations exceed the deadweight of the foundations, and it is desired to incorporate helical piles into the foundation design. We further understand that the required ultimate uplift/tension capacity of the helical piles are on the order of 40 kips per pile. For this purpose, we recommend utilizing a 2-inch square pile section with a triple helix configuration on the lead section consisting of 12-inch. 14-inch and 16-inch helices. If installed to depths of 30 feet below grade, such piles should yield ultimate tension bearing capacities of 40 kips each. The helical pile capacity was determined using our previously completed soil borings and the pile design software HeliCAP which was developed for Hubbell's Chance Helical Pile Foundation Systems. The minimum center to center spacing of the piles should be at least 4 times the diameter of the largest helix. The recommended helical pile should only be utilized for resisting vertical tension loads. Should the hangar foundation design require helical piles to assist with resisting compression loads, additional deeper borings will need to be completed to provide sufficient soil information for their design. Further, it is not recommended to use square pile sections for compression loads. The pile capacities of the helical piles should be verified in the field by monitoring the torque applied to each pile during the installation procedure. The minimum required installation torque for the recommended pile configuration is 4,300 ft-lbs. The Helical Pile Contractor should provide evidence of a recently calibrated digital torque indicator device (using shear pins or mechanical torque indicators is not recommended). Based on our experience, additional pile extensions should be readily available during the installation to accommodate localized changes in the soil stratigraphy. The helical pile installation should be monitored by AACE representatives. Please note that many other combinations of helical anchor shafts and diameters exist. The recommended helical piles may not be the most cost-effective combination, and no attempt was made to optimize the design. We remain available for additional consultations with respect to the helical pile design. We are pleased to be ofp �a�ssistance to you on this phase of your project. When we may be of furtherservice to you or shoul��11h 414pyAuestions, please contact us. ANDERSE V. �4 S>EERS, INC. CfM®r0alc!N4No ' l0.67956 �A AX Peter G. �tsen,WNEm 5- ; David P. Andre, P.E. Principal r '' �I rE COPNeg. Engineer C� /ie Fla. Reg. OR%�P :[��!Z� iL la. eg. No. 53969 pib 834 SW �%j„ ��. �r il��ie, Florida 34983 Ph: 772.807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com /rn I I1�