The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit 4Apr. 30. 2008 9:36AM No. 4509 P. 2 KACO KADERABEK COMPANY Thomas J. Kaderabek, P.E. Barry R. doldateln, P.E. March 29, 2007 Goolochniml a'nglru etlrg • Foundation -Engineering • CornWclion Mak& Tooting • Sal Eiorinp/Moritts Wells Mr. Aris Garcia, A.I.A. WOLFEBRG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS 1500 San Remo Ave., Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 9585 NW 40th Street Rd. Phone: 305/888-3583 Miami, Florida 33i78 Fax: 305/888-3089 Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnfcal Engineering Proposed New City of Miami Fire Station No. 11 5920 West Hagler Street Miami, Florida KACO Project No. 07135 Dear Mr. Garcia: Kaderabek Company (KACO) submits this Report in fulfillment of a scope of services described in our Proposal No. 07-162 dated -March 2, 2007. The work on thfe project was authorized by acceptance of our Professional Services Agreement. This Report describes our understanding of the project, presents our evaluation, and provides foundation recommendations. EXECUTIVE SUM BRY The-project-site-is-located-at-5920-1IitesLE1aalar Str et:in Miami FIoiid*. The s s presently devefoped_as a City of Miami Fire Station wlth 1-ieveT�structures. Based on the information provided, the elevation of the exxisting structure finish floor level is +10.42 feet NGVD. Current site grades range from about +9 to +10 feet NGVO. The proposed construction will consist of a new 2-level fire station. The approximate overlail building footprint area will cover 11,500 sf. For the purpose of thl Report we were provided wall loads of about 13 klf, and we estimate maximum column loads for the proposed structure will be on the order of 200 to 400 kips. Ground floor slabs for all structures are expected to be loaded to a :maximum of 200 pet, Nominal amounts of fill sob maybe required in some portions of the development. Below ground excavations are not anticipated except as required for foundation and elevator pit construction. Ground conditions were explored with three (3) soil test borings and one (1) borehole drainage teat. Borings were completed in areas accessible to our drilling equipment Groundwater was measured at the completion of driiling at an approximate depth of 6%e to 714 feet below existing sfie grades (elevation elf ohm* .61 u. 6% sou s... ILIONta t ^ • r Apr. 30. 2008 9: 36AM Mr. Ms Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No. 4589 P. 3 March 29, 2007 Page 2 1.pypr 1, - A 1 to 3 foot thick layer of Agog Laver 2 - A 3 to 5 foot thick layer of Miami Limestone Laver 3 - A 23 to 34+ foot thick layer of Sand in our professional opinion, the most suitable foundation system.for this project is shallow foundations. Shallow foundations should bear a minimum of 24-inches below existing grade and bear on the Miami Lmestone Formation. Shallow foundations bearing on the limestone formation can use an allowable average bearing soil pressure of 3 kaf. We estimate transferring the structure loads to thellmestone formation and will result in structure settlements of about 1-inch. The ground floor slab(s) can be constructed as slab on grade bearing on a properly prepared subgrade of compacted fill. PROJECT INFORMATION information about this project was received from Woltberg Alvarez. We have received the following documents via email related to this project: DemoNtion and Removals Plan, Sheet No. C.1, Layout Plan, Sheet No. C.2 both for the City of Miami Fire Station No. 11 dated 12-21-06 by Wolfberg Alvarez. In addition we received a partial $ite plan of the existing property and an architectural schematic elevation view. The project site is located at 5920 West Flegier Street in Miami, Florida. The site k bounded by West Flagier Street to She north, SW 591' Court to the west, and SW 5$"' Avenue to the east The site is presently developed as a City of Miami Fire Station with 1-level structures. The elevation of the existing structure finish floor level is indicated as *10.42 feet NGVD. The site is generally rectangular in shape, with plan view sits dimensions of about 130 feet by 180 feet. Current site grades range from about +9to +10 feet NGVD. The proposed construction will consist of a new 2-level fire station. The appre overall building footprint area will cover 1,500 ef. For the purpose of this Proposal we estimate maximum column loads for the proposed structure will be on the order of 200 to 400 kips and waN loads about 13 kit Ground floor slabs for all structures are expected to be loaded to a mvdmum of 200 pet. Nominal amounts of fill soils maybe required in some portions of the development Below ground excavations are not anticipated except as required for foundation and elevator pit construction. PURPO8 The purpose of our services on this project was to Tore the subsurface conditions in order to provide recommendations for foundation design and construction. • • Apr. 30. 2008 9 : 36AM Mr. Ms Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No. 4589 P. 4 March 29, 2007 Page 3 FIELD TESTS, The subsurface conditions were explored using soil test borings and borehole drainage tests. The test locations were approximated in the field by KACO engineering personnel. The approximate test locations are shown in the appended Drawing No. 2. SO Teal Borings - Three (3) soil test borings were performed for this study. Test borings were advanced to depths of approximately 30 to 45 feet below existing site grades. The standard penetration test was used as the investigative tool within the borings. Penetration tests were lie orme m s to ai-accordance-with AS -TM Procedure-D 1586,-'enetration Test and Spllt- Barrel Sampling of Soils." This test procedure drives a 1.4-Inch I.D. spilt tube sampler into the soil profile using a i40-pound hammer failing 30=Inches—The-number-of-blows required to drive the sampler_the_second_and third_6-inch increments is the soil N-value, in blows per foot, and is an indication of soil strength. The soli samples recovered from the soil borings were classified and stratified by a geotechnical engineer. The results of the classification and stratification are shown In the appended Record of Test Boring. It should be noted that soil conditions may vary between the strata interfaces which are shown. Borehole Drainace Test — One (1) borehole drainage test was performed for this study. T-he-i8 re obtained aappended and -titled -Results of Constant Head. Field Borehole Drainage Test. The test was performed by rotating a roller bit and casing to the teat depth. PVC casing was installed in the borehole afte —the steel casingwas-removed:-- Next, -water was pumped into the borehole to develop a test hydraulic head. Once the hydraulic head was stabilized then the average flow rate into -the -borehole was recorded 4-formula-developed-by the South Florida Water Management District was used to estimate hydraulic conductivity. A description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the test location is also presented. The results drainage test is -shown -in -the -appended RosultssoiC9Detant Head Field Borehole Drainage Test. LOCAL �GEOLOGWSuaSt1RFACE CONDITIONS — Miami -Dade County is located on the southern flank of a stable carbonate platform on which thick deposits of limestones, dolomites and evaporites have accumulated, The upper two hundred feet of the soil profile is composed predominantly of limestone and quartz sand. These sediments were deposited during several glacial and Interglacial stages when the ocean was at elevations higher than present. In many portions of Miami -Dade County, surface sand deposits of the Pamlico Formation are encountered. The Pamlico sands have a thickness of 2 to 5 feet and overlie the Miami Limestone. In westem Miami -Dade County, portions of the Everglades Region interfinger with the Pamlico sand. The Everglades soil consist of peat and calcareous silt (marl). The Miami Limestone is a soft to moderately hard, white, porous to very porous, sometimes sandy. oolitic calcareous cemented orainstone. The Miami Limestone outcrops in portions of Apr. 30. 2008 9:36AM Mr. Ms Garda WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No. 4589 P. 5 March 29, 2007 Page 4 direction. The Miami Limestone was formed about 130,000 years ago at a time when the sea level was twenty -Ave feet higher than It is today. This environment facilitated formation of concentrically layered sand sized carbonate grains called oolites. These grains formed by repeated precipitation of calcium carbonate around the nucleus of a sand or shell grain. The Miami Limestone can be separated into two fades: the barrier bar oolitic facies and the tidal shoal limestone facies. The barrier bar facies is characterized by lenses of oolitic limestone separated by intermittent, 1-inch thick or less, uncemented sand layers (cross -bedded limestone). Zones of higher porosity are characteristic and parallel the bedding planes of the cross -bedded limestone. The tidal shoal limestone facies is characterized by a distinct iaok of bedding planes. In addition, burrowing organisms have churned previously deposited sediments, which have _resulted in high porosity channels in the rock. These ancient channels give the rock an appearance of a hardened sponge in some areas. The field tests performed for this project disclose subsurface conditions which are consistent with geology described above. Generally, a thin layer of surfdal sand overlies the Miami Limestone formation. The Miami Limestone was encountered at a depth of about 1 to 3 feet- rom-existing_site_grades. The_Miami Limestone formation was 3 to 5 feet thick. Beneath the Miami Limestone was a layer of sand. The detailed subsurface conditions are presented graphically in the attached Generalized Subsurface Profile and in more detail on the Records of Test Boring. GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Two principal aquifer systems have been defined in Miami -Dade County, the Floridian Aquifer and . he Bwne Aquifer. The depth of the top of the Floridian Aquifer, locally, l8 approximately 1,000 feet with the base occurring at approximately 3,700 feet. The Biscayne Aqui ervariea ickness=afld1�eptinery souroe of potable water in Mlami-Dade County. The maximum aquifer thickness of approximately 200 feet occurs along the Atlantic Coast In northeast Miami -Dade -County._ Primarily, the aquifer is recharged by local rainfall. Aquifer discharge occurs principally by evapotranspiration, pumping for public water supply, and general unrestricted flow into the ocean. The aquifer, however, is regulated by the South Florida Water Management District through a network of natural rivers and man-made canals to maintain a degree of consistency in the groundwater level. Unusual conditions, such as hurricanes and extended drought periods, may result in uncontrolled large scale fluctuations of the groundwater level, Over the past thirty years, variations in water levels in the general vicinity of the project, on an average basis, have ranged from elevation 0 to +4 feet NOVO. These elevations are consistent with the groundwater -levels researched for this geotechnicet study. _ Groundwater was observed at a depth of about 6 , to 7"% feat below the existing site grades or at about elevation +114 to +3r4 feet NGVD at the time our field tests were performed. Groundwater measurements Apr. 30. 2008 9:36AM Mr, Aris Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No. 4589 P. 6 March 29, 2007 Page 5 ENGIkEER1NG PARAMETERS We have used information from our field test, our past experience, and correlation's to published literature to estimate engineering properties for the various sod/rock strata encountered on this project. We have subdivided the subsurface profile into a variety of strata for the purpose of our evaluation, Engineering properties are -estimated in the table below. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CITY OF MIAMI NEW FIRE STATION No. 11 KACO P Layer 1 Description: Thickness Range: Average Thickness: SPT N-Value Range: Modulus Value: Layer 2 Thidmess Range: — Average Thickness: SPT N-Value Range: Modulus Value: Ultimate U.C. Strength: Laver 3 Description: Thickness Range: Average Thickness: SPT N-Value Range: Modulus Value: 1 to 3 feet 2 feet 4 to 12 blows/foot 200 to 400 kef (Reference 2) i estone 3 to 5 feet 4 feet 3 to 7 blows/foot 2,000-to b 600-k f(Reference 7) 6 to 10 kef (Reference 7) bag 23 to 34+ feet Not available 4 to 22 blows/foot 200 to 800 kef (Reference 2) =COMM Foundation Requirements - A foundation must meet three requirements for successful design and construction: bearing capacity, settlement, and environmental factors. Shallow foundations are initially considered because of their relative economy. If shallow foundations do not meet allowable design requirements for bearing capadty, settlement, and environmental factors, then deep foundations (plies) or soli Improvement are considered. The bearing capacity of a soils is the ability of a soil to support loads without plunging Into the 8011'profile. Bearino capacity failures are analnneus In shmsr Mill Iran in s+n,rthurl .i..i1wi :r+ri Apr. 30. 2008 9:37AM Mr. Ms Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No.4589 P. 7 March 29, 2007 Page 8 not plunge into the soil profile. Analytical techniques for soil bearing capacity estimation generally apply to sands, clays and silts. In a cemented deposit or rock formation, bearing capacity is evaluated using techniques such as factor of safety against punching shear failure, factor of safety against beam tension failure, and factor of safety against crushing. Another requirement of a foundation is the ability of structures to tolerate the predicted settlement. The following parameters are necessary in order to estimate settlement: footprint bearing pressure, stress reduction factor, thickness of each compressible underlying stratum, modulus of each stratum, and The allowable amount of settlement that a structure may tolerate is dependent on several factors Includig: uniformity of settlement, time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties of the structural materials. Generally; -total or unlorm settlement does not damage a structure but may affect drainage and utility connections. These can generally tolerate movements of several inches for building construction. In contrast, differential settlement affects a structure'skame_and is limited by the structural flexibility. Many designers are unwilling to accept any settlement and for this reason select a deep foundation system or soil improvement A -common criteria for allowable settlement is to limit differential settlement to 11300 of the span length which would be 1.2 inches for a 30-footapan: Considering the above discussion, it appears prudentto limit structure differential settlement to 1/300 of the span length (about 1-lnoh for 30 foot spans). The final requirement of a foundation is to resist environmental factors such as soil swelling, hurricane scour, sinkholes or soil freezing. In our professional opinion the environmental factors listed have a low probability of occurring based on a scale of low, average, high. -fi ligwFoundations - In our professionatopinion, the most suitable foundation system for the one level structures on this project ie shallow foundations. Shallow foundations should bear a minimum of-24-Inches below existing grade and bear on the Miami Limestone Formation. Following site preparation activities, shallow foundations can use an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf for foundations bearing on the naturally occurring limestone. We estimate that the total settlement for the planned structures, using a soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf will be on the order of 1-inch. Considering the coheslonless nature of the soils present at this site, we predict settlements will occur coincidental with the application of the building dead and live load. We also predict that differential settlement will be about one-half the total settlement and will occur between the center and edge portions of the structure. Differential settlement will be a result of variations in foundation loading pressures. Ground floor slabs for slab loads of less than 200 psf can be constructed as slab on grade bearing on either the limestone layer or on a properly prepared subgrade of compacted fill. • Apr. 30. 2008 9: 37AM Mr. Ms Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No.4589 P. 8 March 29, 2007 Page 7 Earth Pressure Coefficients — We understand that retaining walls being considered. For vertical retaining walls with granular backfill materials, the following range of design values can be used: Fill or Sill Type Moist Unit Weight (pcf) Effective (Buoyant) Weight (pcf) Friction Angle Active Pressure Coefficient Passive Pressure Coeffident Sand FM 110 50 30 _ 0.33 3.00 Limerock Fill 120 80 34 0.28 3.80 Note: A conservative assumption regarding the friction angle between the retaining wail and the backfill material has been used to define earth pressure coefficient Factors of safety against sliding, overturning and bearing capacity must be included in all - earthpressure analysis. We recommend the following factors of safety: 1. Sliding: 1.5 2. Overturning: 2.0 3. Bearing Capacity; 2.5 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided below are based on the project information descried in this Report, field test data, our evaluation as stated in this Report and our past experience with foundation engineering in Miami -Dade County Florida. As project information or design concepts are finalized or changed, we should be advised of these changes In writing, and be provided with an opportunity to review our recommendations as presented In this Report. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Geotechnlcai Site Preparation 1. Geotechnical site preparation for construction should consist of removal of all existing structures, foundations, pavements and underground utilities for the proposed building pad and at -grade pavement construction. deleterious materials (e.g. trees/shrubs/low vegetation; major root systems, burled utility conduits, drainage trenches, buried structures and rubble) should be removed in their entirety from beneath the proposed areas of development. 2. Following the site °clearing/grubbing" operations the exposed soils should be proof rolled to Identifyany weak or loose areas. Proof rolling operations should cover the entire project -- 4640 t n al irw rf Iv dldlna oad and at -grade pavement construction. Proof rolling • Apr. 30. 2008 9:37AM Mr. Ards Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No. 4589 P. 9 March 29, 2007 Page 8 fully loaded construction equipment. The Geoteohnical Engineer should observe and document the proof rolling procedures, 3. Weak surficial soils identified during proof rolling operations should be excavated and removed from the site and replaced with granular fill soils. Granular soils used for this purpose should meet the material and placement specifications outlined below. B. Filling After,pemoiition of Below Ground Stru urps or Raising Site Grades of negded) 1. Fill soils should consist of either inorganic, non -plastic sand having less than 10% material passing the no. 200 sieve, or crushed limestone with a maximum rock size of 8-inches. FM soils placed in the 12-inches directly beneath building grade slabs should consistof either sand with less than 10% passing the number 200 sieve, or crushed limestone with a maximum particle size of 3-inches. 3. Fill soils should be placed with loose itft thicknesses of not more than 12-inches. 4. The molsturcconter t of the fill soils should be within 2% of the optimum moisture content based on ASTM DAM?, _ 5. Proof rolling efforts should be knplemented with a vibratory compactor with a minimum static at -drum weight of 20 tons. The areas of the site that will-supportproposed construction should be subjected to several overlapping coverage's of the compactor as It operates at Its full vibrational frequency and a travel speed of not more that 2 miles per hour. Care -should -betaken -that -vibrations do not to damage existing structures In the 6. Representative samples of the fill soils should be collected for classification and compact of nts ng.-Tfie-maximum-dry density, optimum moisture content, gradation, and plasticity should be determined. These tests are -needed for quality control of the compaoted fit 7. FM sofas should be compacteW to 95% of modified Proctor maximum dry density. Density tests should be performed on compacted fill soils. One test should be performed for each 2,600 square feet of fill area per lift of fill soils. If during the compaction process a soli layer starts to yield (rut or deflect) under the weight of the roller, it should be removed and replaced with dry granular fill described above. 8. The Geotechnicat Engineer should be involved during all earthwork activities to verify that procedures and results are as specified and as anticipated: A9 r. 30. 2008 9:37AM Mr. Arts Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS C. Shallow Foundations No.4589 P. 10 March 29, 2007 Page 9 1. Shallow foundations should be used for support of the proposed construction, Shallow foundations can use an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 kef for foundations bearing on the natural granular soils of properly compacted granular fill. Shallow foundation construction should start upon completion of all geotechnicat site preparation and fill placement activities. 2. Shallow foundations may consist of one or a combination of the following types; strip (wail) footings, Isolated footings beneath columns, or monolithic footing/slabs. The specific shellow foundation type(s) should be selected considering project structural constraints and installation costs and should be the decision of the Structural Engineer. 3. Shallow foundations can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 Wit( foundations bearing at least 24-inches below adjacent finished grade. Foundation bearing soils should be confirmed prior to the placement of the relnforcing steel and concrete placed in footing 4. In order to prevent localized shear failure of the bearing sous, individual and strip footings should have minimum footing widths of 24 and 18-inches 'respectively. 5. 'Foundation excavations should be cut to final grade and footings constructed as soon as possible to minimize potential damage to bearing soils as result of exposure to the environment. 8..______Sbaliow-foundations-should-noi-be-cast-diraotly agaInstlhe exposed, vertical and -horizontal, soil or rock excavation faces. Shallow foundation construction should occur in the dry. 7. The GeotechnI al -Engineer, -who-islaniliar-with-the-foundation c ignand_ construction assumptions as well as the intent of the geotechnical recommendations, should observe the excavations for all shallow foundations and be Involved with the field geotechnicai obsenrafions during construction. D. Ground Floor Slab 1. Slab -on -grade construction may be used for this project following the recommended geotechnical site preparation. Slab -on -grade construction should occur In the dry. 2. Construction joints should be provided at column and wall interfaces, and throughout the slab, to minimize the potential for cracking at -these locations. • - ---- 1��..�ww.. /ArN+ali Apr. 30. 2008 9:37AM Mr. Arts Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS E. Qiker No. 4589 P. 11 March 29, 2007 Page 10 1. The alte is developed and we were not able to explore the areas beneath the existing structures. The nature or extent of variations throughout the subsurface profile may not become evident until the time of demolition of the existing structures. ff variations then appear evident, KACO should be notified immediately as it may be necessary to evaluate our recommendations as provided in this Report. 2. The Geotechnlcal Engineer, who is familiar with the foundation design and construction —assumptions as well as the intent of the geotechnical recommendations, should observe the excavations for all shallow foundations and be involved with ih Held geotechnical observations during construction. REPORT LIMITATIONS This consulting Report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners and other members of the project design team for the specific application to this project. This Report has been prepared in accordance lithe eras accepted local geotechnioal enginesevarrantris-expre The evaluation and recommendations submitted in this Report are based in part upon the data collected from the field exploration. The nature or extent of variations throughout the subsurface profile may not become evident until the time of consfrUctiOn If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to evaluate our recommendations as provided in this Report. if KACO is not afforded the opportunity to participate In construction related aspects of foundation installation as recommended in this Report, we can accept no responsibility for the interpretation of our recommendations made In this Report or for foundation perfonance. REFERENCES 1. "Guidelines for Use in the Soils investigation and Design of Foundations for Bridge Structures in the State of Florida," by John Schmertmenn, Florida State Road Department, September 14,1967. 2. Webb, D.L., Settlement of Structures on Sandy Sediments in Durban, South Africa, Conference on in -situ Behavior of Soil and Rock, Institute of CM Engineers,1909. 3. Tall Silos an Soft Limestone, by T.J. Kaderabek, Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soli Engineering, Pocatello, Idaho, March 1982. 4-."^+mot ZnnIncialina for 3.200 Acre Development. ASCE, South Florida Section • Apr. 30, 2008 9:37AM Mr. Aris Garcia WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS No. 4589 P. 12 March 29, 2007 Page 11 5. Settlements Beneath Preload Test Fill, by Kaderabek and Reynolds, ASCE Volume 105, No. GTO, June 1979. 6. Foundation Engineering and Soil Mechanics by George Sowers, McMillan Publishing Co., New York, New York, 1979. 7. Miami Umestone Foundation Design and Construction, by Kaderabek and Reynolds, Journal of Geotechnic al Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 107, No. GT7, July 1981. 8. Kaderabek, T.J., Geotechnical Design Miami -Dade County Administration-Building—ASCE South Florida Section Annual Meeting, October 1981. CLOSURE If you have questions about information contained in this Report, please contact the writer at 305/868-3563. Sincerely, .041 b2•v'4 Pro at Manager Florida License No. 57604 rryR.G I Vic President Florida License No. . 1841 Attachments:Drawing- No. -1—Vicinity Map (A-1) Drawing No. 2-Test Location Plan (A-2) -- Drawing No. 3-Generalized Subsurface Profiles (A3) Key to Symbols (A-4) Notes Related to Test Borings (A-5) Records of Test Boring (A-8 to A-10) Record of Borehole DiBorehole Drainage Test (A-11) Distribution: Original & 4 Copies to Addressee via U.S. Mali Copy via Fax Copy to KACO File RIDOCaMcO Rpom1o7laisabof fm l pressmen h 14Wuonao.o Rg40147Aoo • Apr, 30, 2008 9: 38AM No.4589 P. 13 p. ..norN usf.1.1111,drei ar. Nct�le Aortal photograph courlooy of Mall Dodo County, 2000, * aw. aMs ir w.wur Via 1 f t re f Yid f f f w�..« ; fmeld volPI � Nrw • ff off iir � 7.or. fMIAOW tf AM 71 • iEriIi * is'.n°Qt � s:.SFrrr x r Itrt a; :late; m ptwt�w.+r Notes: Map courtesy of MapQus. , 2007. AWM j OWN BY: airy Apr. 30. 2000 9: 3$AM Nob: Aerial Plop j e i= Courtesy of c : Ji Fa►lh, Z007, LEOONp Note 1. hi* dawn not to scd�. 8-1 - Soil Boring Location 2. Toot toatians on. ohm as approea,* 2 Teat ignition symbols srs nOt to MIL Dralnags Tut Location H 1 �ilArS7;'Tl�r No. 4589 P. 14 DWN $V• erseitirin Plan —Apr. 30. 2008— 9:38AM 40 40 7- 4= r4 Si IJ Abuliszugull, 44 No.4589 P. 15 SAND III WINSTON 4 4.1••111k. 41,4' T. AP (14$ II 14 41-1- } il)Vi' -7 n wan Its& te the appended Roma( of Ton Boring lopM) for a somplato desedpilen of ths stratum(*) steam abOW. Apr. 30. 2008 9: 38AM No. 4589 P. 16 KEY TO SYMBOLS Symbol Description Mats stele SAND LXMEBTONE 1isc. Symbol¢ Groundwater level measured at boring completion. The date checked is indicated. Drill fluid loss. Boring continues TBoring termination. Soil Samplers Li. Standard penetration test. 140 lb. hammer dropped 30" 1. Bxploratory borings were drilled on the dates shown using the techniques indicated on the borings logs. . The soil and rook samples were recovered using procedures outlined in A8TM D-1566. 3. Boring locations were positioned by measuring from existing site features as shown on furnished documents. 4. The boring logs are part of a Gsotechnical Report and ars subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in that Report. Apr. 30. 2008 9: 38AM No. 4589 P. 17 NOTES RELATED TO RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE KADERABEK COMPANY, MIAMI, FLORIDA 1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded (If shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on the date Indicated. Fluctuations In groundwater levels ore common; consult report text for a discussion. 2. The boring location was Identified In the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape and survey wheel. 3. The borehole was backfllied to site grade following boring completion, and patched with asphalt cold patch mix when pavement was encountered. 4. The Record of Test Boring represents' our Interpretation of field conditions -based on englnearfng examination of the soli samples. 5. The Record of Test Boring le subject to the Iimkations, conclusions and recommendations presented in the report text-- . -.-- 6. "Field Test Date" shown on the Record of Teat Boring Indicated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and means 11 hammer blows drove the sampler Inches. SPT uses 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. — -- 7. The N valuo from the $PT Is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6-Inoh increments. 8. The solUrock strata Interfaces shown -on the Record of Test Boring are spproximate_and may vary from those shown. The solUrock conditions shown on the Record of Test Boring refer to conditions at the specific location tested; eon/rock conditions may vary-betweestteetlocations. 9. Relative -dimity for sands/gravels and consstsney for sifts/Clays end Ihree ne are described es follows: 8PT Blowsy Foot Sande/Gravels Relative Density $P7 Blows/, Foot =-SIItUClay Relative Consistency SPT Blow& Foot —limestone Relative Consistency 0-4 Very loose 0-2 Very Soft 040 Very Soft ' 6.10 Loose . 3.4 Soft 21-30 Soft 11-30 Medium Dense 541 _ _ . _ _ _. Eisen 31.45 Medium Hard 31-50 -Dense 9-15 4640 _ -=lQ*ra1Sb Hard - WIT 18a0 --Vuy-$tlfi 61-5012" -- -- Hard._ Over a0 Very Dense Over 30 Herd , sr MT Very Hard 10. Grain size descriptions ere as follows; Nen Boulder Cobbles Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Coarse Sand Medium Sand Pine Sand Fines SIZE LIMITS 12 inches or more 3 to 12 Inches 3/4 to 3 Inches No. 4 sieve to 3/4 Inch No. 10 to No. 4 sieve No. 40 to No. 10 skive No. 200 to No. 40 Sieve Smeller then No. 200 sieve 11. Definitions related PROPORTION About 10% About 25% to adjectives used In soil/rock descriptions: ADJECTNE APPROXIMATE R • • with a trace Less than 1132" with some 1n9" to 1/4" Fine roots Smell roots Madlum roots • _ ..Apr. 30. 2008_ 9 : 38AM I*0 KADERABEK COMPANY No. 4589_-P. 18 RECORD OF TEST BORING PROJECT/LOCATION: City of Miami Fire Station 11 PROJECT NO: 07135 START: 3/27/07 BORING LOCATION: See boring location plan DRILL: Mobile B-00 BORING METHOD: Rotary drill with wash, casing, and mud BORING NO: B-1 FINISH: 3/27/07 WEATHER: DRILLER: J. Johnson DRILL CONTRACTOR: ICaderabek Company ELEVATION (EST.):+ 9.5 feet (NGVD) GROUNDWATER: 7.3 feet (depth) DATE CHECKED: 3/27/07 FLUID LOSS: N ELEV./ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA MAJOR SOIL COMPONENT OTHER COMPONENTS_ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH CURVE —o .-s0 -30 30 SAND LIMESTONE Vary loose Top of Rook Very soft and send Medium dense, with some shells Loose, trace of shed 19 39 4 3 e-r Medium dense, trace of ettieik) - tsa4. Medium dense__ Mediumdense Medium dense sir- 12 11 12 13 15 1 • Apr, 30. 2008 9 : 38AM No. 4589P. 19 K*C� KADERABIEK COMPANY RECORD OF TEST BORING PROJECT/LOCATION: City of Miami Fire Station 11 BORING NO: B-2 PROJECT NO: 07135 START: 3/27/07 FINISH: 3/27/07 WEATHER: BORING LOCATION: See boring location plan DRILLER: J. Johnson DRILL: Mobile B-80 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Kaderabek Company ELEVATION (EST.):+ 9.5 feet (NGVD) GROUNDWATER: 6,4 feet (depth) DATE CHECKED: 3/27/07 BORING METHOD: Rotary drill with womb, easing, and mad FLUID LOSS: Pi ELEVJ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS AND HELD TEST DATA MAJOR SOIL_ COMPONENT OTHER COMPONENTS STANDARD PENETRATION TEST C1)AVE DEPTH N s— a —1 -s — -se — • -sa- —o ws — le — so —sa — 30 SAND LIMESTONE SAND Medium dense; 2" Limestone All Top of rock Very soft, and sand Very loose, trace of shells . Loose Loose, trace of sheltie . Medium dense Medium dense Medium dense Medium dense 0%1' r-4' e:r r-r 12 7 4 8 7 ir-:r le r3 24' 18 28 23 19 3t1 Apr. 30. 2008 9:38AM iC*CO No. 4589P. 20 RECORD OF TEST BORING KADERABEK COMPANY PROJECl/LOCATION: clh' of Miami Fire Station 11 ELEVJ DEPTH -30 - .11 -as — -40 - -4$ - - 40 41 —so 55 -70 BORING NO: B-2 SOIL SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA OTHER COMPONENTS STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH Moderately hard, with some sand Dense, with some limestone and sandstone 98'-3B' 4r-41' 33 CURVE 9 NII • Apr. 30, 2008 9:38AM IAC0 KADERA8EK COMPANY No, 4589_.P. 21 RECORD OF TEST BORING PROJECT/LOCATION: City of Miami Fire Station 11 .BORING NO: B-3 PROJECT NO: 07135 START: 3/27/07 FINISH: 3/27/07 WEATHER BORING LOCATION: See boring location plan DRILLER J. Johnson DRILL: Mobile B-80 DRILL CONTRACTOR Kaderabek Company ELEVATION (EST.):+ 9.5 feet (NGVD) GROUNDWATER: 6.7 feet (depth) DATE CHECKED: 3/27/07 BORING METHOD: Rotary drill with wash, easing, and mud FLUID LOSS: N ELEV./ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS AND • FIELD TEST DATA MAJOR SOIL COMPONENT OTHER COMPONENTS STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DEPTH 0- -i — -10 aid - -20 -• .- 0 Aw f . a — a —10 r- l0 • ay) • —21 !1i:.= 1It I.s', 1 • SAND LIMESTONE SAND Loose Top of rock Loose, trace of limestone, trace organics Very loose, trace of limestaee Medium dense Medium dense Medium dense Medium dense Medium dense a-r e!r Iry 0 5 0 2 is..14. 13 n.44. 23 2l'-29' 21 33'-34' 20 CURVE •19 39 59 • r A i Y • • . •l • • Apr. 30. 2008_ 9:39AM No. 4589.__P. 22 1114CAL4C CO KADERAEEK COMPANY RECORD OF TEST BORING PROJECT/LOCATION: City of Miami Fire Station I1 BORING NO: B-3 ELEV./ DEPTH -30 ^ .- 40 -31-� - 40 1 -50 " e0 -40 -. „ SOIL SYMBOLS AND MAJOR SOIL COMPONENT FIELD TEST DATA OTHER COMPONENTS Medium dense STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Tr DEPTH 3r 22 CURVE to ' s9 /111.1.11 • Ao r. 30. 2008 9:39AM No. 4589 P. 23 RESULTS OF CONSTANT HEAD FIELD BOREHOLE DRAINAGE TEST KADERABEK COMPANY, MIAMI, FLORIDA KACO PROJECT NO. 07136 PROJECT NAME: City of Miami Fire Station 11 LOCATION: Refer to Test Location Plan TEST NO.: P 1 TEST DATE: 27-Mar-07 TEST PERFORMED BY: J. Johnson APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION, FEET, NGVD: + 9.00 DEPTH TO STABILIZED GROUNDWATER, FEET: 6.80 DEPTH TO WATER SURFACE DURING TEST, FEET: 0.00 HEAD, TEST HEAD, TEST HYDRAULIC HEAD, (H), FEET: 8.80 DEPTH OF OPEN HOLE AFTER DRILLING, FEET: 15.00 PERFORATED CASING LENGTH, FEET: 15.00 PERFORATED CASING DIAMETER, OR HOLE DIAMETER, (D), FEET: 0.50 LENGTH OF BOREHOLE BELOW STABILIZED GROUNDWATER, (8), FEET: 8.40 TIME TO STABILIZE TEST HEAD, MINUTES: 1.00 AVERAGE FLOW RATE AT CONSTANT HEAD, (Q), CPS: 0.029436 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, (K) CFS/SQ. FT. - FOOT HEAD: 0.000240 FORMULA USED: SFYVMD SFWMD USUAL OPEN K = 4Q HOLE FORMULA 3.14(D)[2(H)(H)+4(H)(S)+(H)(D)1 TIME, WATER METER WATER METER FLOW RATE (0) MINUTES READING, BEGIN READING, END GALLONS/MINUTE 1 040 053 13 2 053 088 13 .3 006 079 13 4 079 092 13 5 092 105 13 8 105 119 14 7 119 132 13 8 132 148 14 9 148 159 13 10 159 172 13 Average (0) - 13.2 GPM x 0.00223 = 0.0294 CFS DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE, FEET SOIL ROCK DESCRIPTION 0 to 3.0 Brown SAND 3.0 to 8.6 Tan LIMESTONE and SAND 8.5 to 15.0 Light gray SAND