Geotechnical Engineering Study Report - Tank Farm Enclosure.pdf

ECS Florida, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Tank Farm Enclosure Miami Veteran’s Administration Medical Center

1201 NW 16th Street Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida 33125

ECS Project Number 25:3705

April 2, 2021

Proposed Tank Farm Enclosure April 2, 2021 ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location/Current site use/Past site use

2.2 Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 Subsurface Characterization

3.2 Groundwater Observations

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Foundations

4.2 Slabs On Grade

4.3 Existing Underground Utilities

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Subgrade Preparation

5.1.1 Subgrade Compaction

5.2 Earthwork Operations

5.2.1 Structural Fill

5.3 Foundation and Slab Observations

5.4 Utility Installations

6.0 CLOSING

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

• Site Location Diagram

• Boring Location Diagram

• Subsurface Soil Profile

• Soil Survey Map

Appendix B – Field Operations

• Reference Notes for Boring Logs

• Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)

• Boring Logs B-1

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the geotechnical information and recommendations for the design of building foundations and pavement sections for the proposed Tank Farm Enclosure project located in Miami, Florida. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

• Based on our subsurface exploration, the site consists of concrete surface coverage, underlain by crushed limestone base material. The underlying soil profile at the site generally consists of medium dense sand (SP) and Oolitic limestone with sand, underlain by very loose sand (SP) and Oolitic limestone with sandstone to the boring termination depths of 35 feet.

• Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that the proposed tank farm enclosure can be supported on conventional shallow foundations consisting of drop-down footings and monolithic slab-on-grade supported system.

• The monolithic foundation system can be supported on the existing footing and slab subgrade materials, provided they are properly compacted according to the procedures described in the body of this report.

• An allowable net bearing capacity of 2,000 psf should be used for footing design and modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci can be used for the slab-on-grade.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical design, foundation, and pavement, recommendations for the proposed Tank Farm Enclosure project located in Miami, Florida. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by Toland Mizell Molner, LLC.

Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 25:7707-GP, dated March 19, 2021, as authorized by Toland Mizell Molnar, LLC, on March 19, 2021, which includes our Terms and Conditions of Service between ECS Florida, LLC and Toland Mizell Molnar, LLC dated June 4, 2013.

This report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs, review of existing site conditions, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of the project.

The report includes the following items.

• A brief review and description of our field and laboratory test procedures and the results of testing conducted.

• A review of area and site geologic conditions.

• A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

• Final copies of our soil exploration/test boring logs.

• Subsurface soil profile with available topographic information, including sampling, testing, and groundwater levels.

• Estimated seasonal high groundwater levels at the site.

• Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills.

• Recommended soil bearing pressures and foundation type.

• Evaluation and recommendations relative to groundwater control.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 3

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION/CURRENT SITE USE/PAST SITE USE

The site is located less than a mile west of I-95 in Miami, Florida. The site is bounded by a NW 16th Street to the south, is bounded by a NW 14th Avenue to the west, is bounded by a NW 16th Street to the south, a commercial property to the north, and NW 12th Avenue to the east. Figure 2.1.1 below shows the site location.

Figure 2.1.1. Site Location

The property is currently developed with the Miami VA Medical Center. We understand that the project consists of the addition of a tank farm enclosure.

ECS reviewed aerial photographs of the subject property and immediate surrounding properties on Google Earth© Historical Imagery databases. The aerial photographs reviewed were dated, 1961, 1969, 1980, 1986, 1994, 1999, 2002 - 2007, 2009 – 2011, and 2013 - 2021.

The 1961 aerial photograph shows the subject site as undeveloped land with grass and sparse trees as surface coverage.

The 1969 aerial photographs show that Medical Center facility was constructed, it included three structures building with associated parking areas.

The 1980 - 1994 aerial photograph shows that many buildings were added to the facility.

The 1999 through 2021 aerial photograph show no major changes to the property.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 4

2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on the provided conceptual site plan, we understand that the project consists of a single-story tank farm enclosure.

Table 2.2.1 One-Story Tank Farm Design Values

SUBJECT DESIGN INFORMATION / EXPECTATIONS

# of Stories One story above grade Usage Tank Farm Enclosure

Framing We anticipate that the building will be principally reinforced masonry with interior columns.

Column Loads(1) Assumed 60 kips (Full Dead and Factored Live) maximum Wall Loads(1) Assumed 5 kips per linear foot (klf) maximum Lowest Finish Floor Elevation(2) Assumed near present grade (Approximately +7.0 feet)

Column Spacing Assumed approximately 20 x 20 feet (maximum)

(1) If actual structural loads differ from these assumed loads ECS must be contacted immediately in order to revise building foundation recommendations and settlement calculations as needed.

(2) Please note that the ground surface elevations were not surveyed by a licensed surveyor; these elevations are approximate based on Google-Earth©; therefore; elevations described in this report may not be relied upon for site design.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 5

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the insert titled Subsurface Exploration Procedures. Our scope of work included drilling 1 boring. Our boring were located with a handheld GPS unit and by tape measurements from existing site features. and their approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A.

3.1 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil strata. Please refer to the boring logs in Appendix B. A graphical presentation of the subsurface conditions is shown on the Subsurface Cross Section Diagram included in Appendix A.

South Florida region is located on the southern flank of Florida Plateau, a stable, carbonate platform on which thick deposits of limestones, dolomites, and evaporates have accumulated. The general geology of the upper 200 feet of this platform within the area of South Florida where the proposed project is to be located is composed predominantly of limestone and quartz sand. The geological formation that usually is encountered from top to bottom within Miami-Dade County is: Miami Limestone.

Table 3.1.1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions Approximate

Depth (ft) Elevation (1)

(ft) Stratum Description Ranges of

SPT(2) N-Values (bpf)

0 - 0.46 ft EL. + 7 to + 6.54 n/a Concrete was encountered as surface covering.

N/A

0.46 – 4.0 ft EL. + 6.54 to + 3 I (FILL) Crushed limestone and medium dense (SP) sand, dry

4.0 – 8.0 ft EL. + 3 to -1 II Oolitic limestone with sand, dry to moist 13 - 22

8.0 – 10.0 ft EL. - 1 to -3 III Fine to medium (SP) sand, moist to saturated

10.0 – 30.0 ft EL. -3 to -23 IV Oolitic limestone, saturated 1 - 19

30.0 – 32.3 ft EL. -23 to -25.3 V Fine (SP) sand, Saturated WOH (3)

32.3 – 35.0 ft EL. -25.3 to -28 VI Oolitic limestone with sandstone, saturated 11

Notes:

(1) Please note that the ground surface elevations were not surveyed by a licensed surveyor; these elevations are approximate based on Google-Earth©; therefore. Elevation ranges are approximate +/- several feet.

(2) Standard Penetration Testing

(3) WOH means Weight of Hammer

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 6

3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Water levels were measured in our boring logs in Appendix B. Groundwater depths measured at the time of drilling at approximately 9 feet below the ground surface. Variations in the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors. Based upon our interpretation of the subsurface data, it appears that the seasonal high groundwater level is at a depth of approximately 7.5 feet below existing grade.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 7

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 FOUNDATIONS

Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as recommended in this report, the proposed structure can be supported by shallow foundations including column footings and continuous wall footings. For this project the shallow foundation configuration should be designed as a drop-down footing and monolithic slab configuration with suitable reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab. We recommend the foundation design use the following parameters:

Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure(1) 2,000 psf 2,000 psf

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Medium Dense SAND (SP) - Stratum I

Medium Dense SAND (SP) - Stratum I

Minimum Width 24 inches 18 inches

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below slab or finished grade) (2)

24 inches 24 inches

Estimated Total Settlement (3) Less than 1- inch Less than 1- inch

Estimated Differential Settlement (4)

Less than ¾ inches between new foundation and existing structure

Less than ¾ inches

Notes:

(1) Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

(2) Based on assumed structural loads. If final loads are different, ECS must be contacted to update foundation recommendations and settlement calculations.

(3) Based on maximum column/wall loads and variability in borings. Differential settlement can be re-evaluated once the foundation plans are more complete.

Potential Undercuts: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed. with approved structural fill or with lean concrete (f’c ≥ 1,000 psi at 28 days) or No. 57 stone, as applicable, up to the original design bottom of footing elevation.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 8

4.2 SLABS ON GRADE

Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed floor slab can be constructed as Ground Supported Slabs (or Slab-On-Grade). The slabs will bear on newly compacted fill, Stratum I - SAND (SP). The following graphic describes the soil-supported slab recommendations:

Figure 4.3.1

1. Drainage Layer Thickness: four inches

2. Drainage Layer Material: 6 inches of GRAVEL (GP, GW), SAND (SP, SW)

Soft or yielding soils may be encountered in some areas. Those soils should be removed and replaced with compacted Structural Fill in accordance with the recommendations included in this report.

Subgrade Modulus: Provided the Structural Fill and Granular Drainage Layer are constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction, k1 of 150 pci (lbs./cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a one foot by one foot plate load test basis.

Vapor Barrier: Before the placement of concrete, a vapor barrier may be placed on top of the granular drainage layer to provide additional protection against moisture penetration through the floor slab. When a vapor barrier is used, special attention should be given to surface curing of the slab to reduce the potential for uneven drying, curling and/or cracking of the slab. Depending on proposed flooring material types, the structural engineer and/or the architect may choose to eliminate the vapor barrier.

Slab Isolation: Soil-supported slabs should be isolated from the foundations and foundation-supported elements of the structure so that differential movement between the foundations and slab will not induce excessive shear and bending stresses in the floor slab. For this project, a free-floating slab such as in a drop-down footing/monolithic slab configuration can be used provided the structural engineer designs the slab with suitable reinforcement and load transfer devices to preclude overstressing of the slab.

4.3 EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

Active underground utilities are present below the asphalt-paved surface of the proposed tank farm enclosure that consist of gas, electric and water lines. Extra care must be taken to protect these utility lines from being disturbed during foundation construction. The utilities must be marked at the ground surface prior to excavating the foundations. If these utilities will remain in place under the tank farm, then we recommend using soft dig techniques around marked utility lines.

Vapor Barrier

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 9

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

5.1.1 Subgrade Compaction

Prior to fill placement or other construction on subgrades, the subgrades should be evaluated by an ECS field technician. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly compacted with equipment suitable to compact the subgrades and fill materials. A lightweight vibratory sled having a total weight on the order of 500 to 2,000 lbs may be used for compaction of coarse-grained soils (Sands) as well as for sealing compacted surfaces.

5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS

5.2.1 Structural Fill

Prior to placement of Structural Fill, representative bulk samples (about 50 pounds) of on-site and/or off-site borrow should be submitted to ECS for laboratory testing, which will typically include Atterberg limits, natural moisture content, grain-size distribution, and moisture-density relationships (i.e., Proctors) for compaction. Import materials should be tested prior to being hauled to the site to determine if they meet project specifications. Alternatively, Proctor data from other accredited laboratories can be submitted if the test results are within the last 90 days.

Satisfactory Structural Fill Materials: Materials satisfactory for use as Structural Fill should consist of inorganic soils with the following engineering properties and compaction requirements.

TABLE 5.2.1.1 STRUCTURAL FILL INDEX PROPERTIES

Subject Property

Building and Pavement Areas LL < 40, PI<6

Max. Particle Size 4 inches

Fines Content % Passing #200 Sieve Max. 25 %

Max. organic content 5% by dry weight

TABLE 5.2.1.2 STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Subject Requirement

Compaction Standard Standard Proctor, ASTM D698

Required Compaction 95% of Max. Dry Density

Moisture Content -2 to +3 % points of the soil’s optimum value

Loose Thickness 8 inches prior to compaction

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 10

Fill Placement: Fill materials should not be placed on excessively wet soils. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.

At the end of each work day, all fill areas should be graded to facilitate drainage of any precipitation and the surface should be sealed by use of a smooth-drum roller to limit infiltration of surface water. During placement and compaction of new fill at the beginning of each workday, the Contractor may need to scarify existing subgrades to a depth on the order of four inches so that a weak plane will not be formed between the new fill and the existing subgrade soils.

Drying and compaction of wet soils is typically difficult during the rainy season. Accordingly, earthwork should be performed during the drier times of the year, if practical. Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to prevent ponding of water which has a tendency to degrade subgrade soils. Alternatively, if these soils cannot be stabilized by conventional methods as previously discussed, additional modifications to the subgrade soils such as cement stabilization may be utilized to adjust the moisture content. If cement is utilized to control moisture contents and/or for stabilization, regular Type 1 cement can be used.

The construction testing laboratory should evaluate proposed cement soil modification procedures, such as quantity of additive and mixing and curing procedures, before implementation. The contractor should be required to minimize dusting or implement dust control measures, as required.

Fill material should be placed in horizontal lifts in confined areas such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of three inches to four inches may be required to achieve specified degrees of compaction.

We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. We do not anticipate significant problems in controlling moisture within the fill during dry weather, but moisture control may be difficult during extended periods of rain.

5.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS

Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a one to three-inch thick “mud mat” of “lean” concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.

Footing Subgrade Observations: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. It is important to have ECS observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete; to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 11

Slab Subgrade Verification: Prior to placement of a drainage layer, the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations found in Section 5.1.1 Subgrade Compaction and Section 5.2.1 Structural Fill.

5.4 UTILITY INSTALLATIONS

Utility Subgrades: The soils encountered in our exploration are expected to be generally suitable for support of utility pipes. The pipe subgrades should be observed and probed for stability by ECS.

Any loose or unsuitable materials encountered should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted Structural Fill, or pipe stone bedding material.

Utility Backfilling: The granular bedding material should be at least 4 inches thick, but not less than that specified by the civil engineer’s project drawings and specifications. We recommend that the bedding materials be placed up to the springline of the pipe. Fill placed for support of the utilities, as well as backfill over the utilities, should satisfy the requirements for Structural Fill and Fill Placement.

Excavation Safety: All excavations and slopes should be constructed and maintained in accordance with OSHA excavation safety standards. The contractor is solely responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining stable temporary excavations and slopes. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. ECS is providing this information solely as a service to our client. ECS is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

ECS Project No. 25:3705 Page 12

6.0 CLOSING

ECS has prepared this report to guide the geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of the project. We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region. No other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report.

The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS by Toland Mizell Molnar, LLC. If any of this information is inaccurate or changes, either because of our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted so we can review our recommendations and provide additional or alternate recommendations that reflect the proposed construction.

We recommend that ECS review the project plans and specifications so we can confirm that those plans/specifications are in accordance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.

Field observations and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of, and integral to, the geotechnical design. We recommend that ECS be retained to apply our expertise throughout the geotechnical phases of construction, and to provide consultation and recommendation should issues arise.

ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

APPENDIX A – Diagrams and Reports

Site Location Diagram Boring Location Diagram Subsurface Cross-Section Soil Survey Map

3/31/2021

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

25:3705

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

JA

TOLAND MIZELL MOLNER, LLC

PROPOSED TANK FARM ADDITION - MIAMI VA

MEDICAL CENTER

1201 NW 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

0 1,200600

Feet

AS NOTED

B-1

3/12/2021

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

25:3705

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

JA

TOLAND MIZELL MOLNER, LLC

PROPOSED TANK FARM ADDITION - MIAMI VA

MEDICAL CENTER

1201 NW 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA

Boring Location Diagram 0 200100

Feet

AS NOTED

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3

-4 -4

-5 -5

-6 -6

-7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -9

-10 -10

-11 -11

-12 -12

-13 -13

-14 -14

-15 -15

-16 -16

-17 -17

-18 -18

-19 -19

-20 -20

-21 -21

-22 -22

-23 -23

-24 -24

-25 -25

-26 -26

-27 -27

-28 -28

0.

.1

.3

-29.00

Legend Key Gravel or Conglome… Poorly Graded

SAND

Oolitic Limestone

Notes:

1- EOB: END OF BORING AR: AUGER REFUSAL SR: SAMPLER REFUSAL.

2- THE NUMBER BELOW THE STRIPS IS THE DISTANCE ALONG THE BASELINE.

3- SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION.

4- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE (LEFT OF BORING) IN BLOWS

PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).

Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

[FINES CONTENT%]

BOTTOM OF CASING

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

Fill

Possible Fill

Probable Fill

Rock

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE

Proposed Tank Farm Addition - Miami VA Medical Center Toland Mizell Molner, LLC

1201 NW 16th Street, Miami, Florida 33125 Project No: 25:3705 Date: 03/31/2021

*B -1

EOB

@35.0'

Gravel

SP

SP

Oolitic Limesto ne

SP

Oolitic Limesto ne

SP

Oolitic Limesto ne

Oolitic Limesto ne

SP

Oolitic Limesto ne

Soil Map—Miami-Dade County Area, Florida (3705 Soil Map )

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/18/2021

578340 578380 578420 578460 578500 578540 578580 578620 578660 578700 578740 578780

578340 578380 578420 578460 578500 578540 578580 578620 578660 578700 578740 578780

25° 47' 35'' N

3'

'' W 25° 47' 35'' N

2'

0' ' W

25° 47' 25'' N

3'

'' W

25° 47' 25'' N

2'

0' ' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600

Feet 0 30 60 120 180

Meters Map Scale: 1:2,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Miami-Dade County Area, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 12, Jun 9, 2020

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 6, 2019—Mar 24, 2020

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—Miami-Dade County Area, Florida (3705 Soil Map )

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/18/2021

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

15 Urban land, 0 to 2 percent slopes

15.3 100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 15.3 100.0%

Soil Map—Miami-Dade County Area, Florida 3705 Soil Map

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

3/18/2021

APPENDIX B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Boring Logs B-1

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

MATERIAL1,2

1Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-17 (Visual-Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.

2To be consistent with general practice, “POORLY GRADED” has been removed from GP, GP-GM, GP-GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.

3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].

4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).

5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). “N-value” is another term for “blow count” and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf). SPT correlations per 7.4.2 Method B and need to be corrected if using an auto hammer.

6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.

7Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-17 Note 14.

8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-17.

Reference Notes for Boring Logs (10-14-2020).doc © 2020 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH, QP4

<0.25

0.25 - <0.50

0.50 - <1.00

1.00 - <2.00

2.00 - <4.00

4.00 - 8.00

>8.00

SPT5

(BPF)

CONSISTENCY7

(COHESIVE)

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS

SPT5

DENSITY

<5 5 - 10

11 - 30 31 - 50

>50

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

WATER LEVELS6

RELATIVE

AMOUNT7

Trace

With

Adjective (ex: “Silty”)

COARSE

GRAINED

(%)8

<5

FINE

GRAINED

(%)8

<5

DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION

DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES

Hollow Stem Auger Power Auger (no sample) Bulk Sample of Cuttings Wash Sample Shelby Tube Sampler Split Spoon Sampler

Rock Quality Designation % Rock Sample Recovery % Rock Core, NX, BX, AX Rock Bit Drilling Pressuremeter TestSS

ST

WS

BS

PA

HSA

RQD

PM

RD

RC

REC

Boulders Cobbles

Gravel:

Sand:

Silt & Clay (“Fines”) Fine Medium

Coarse Fine Coarse

0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve) <0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)

2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)

4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to ¾ inch) ¾ inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm) 3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm) 12 inches (300 mm) or larger

>50 31 - 50 16 - 30

9 - 15 5 - 8 3 - 4 <3

Very Hard Hard

Very Stiff

Stiff Firm Soft

Very Soft

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

VOID

BRICK

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

MH

CL

CH

OL

OH

PT

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

SILTY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-silt mixtures

CLAYEY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-clay mixtures

WELL-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

POORLY-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SM SILTY SAND

sand-silt mixtures

CLAYEY SAND

sand-clay mixtures

SILT

non-plastic to medium plasticity

ELASTIC SILT

high plasticity

LEAN CLAY

low to medium plasticity

FAT CLAY

high plasticity

ORGANIC SILT or CLAY non-plastic to low plasticity

ORGANIC SILT or CLAY high plasticity

PEAT

highly organic soils

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

FILL POSSIBLE FILL PROBABLE FILL ROCK

FILL AND ROCK

25 - 45

10 - 20

30 - 45

10 - 25

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURE:

STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT)

ASTM D 1586

Split-Barrel Sampling

Standard Penetra on Tes ng, or SPT, is the most frequently used subsurface explora on test performed worldwide. This test provides samples for iden fica on purposes, as well as a measure of penetra on resistance, or N-value. The N-Value, or blow counts, when corrected and correlated, can approximate engineering proper es of soils used for geotechnical design and engineering purposes.

• Involves driving a hollow tube (split-spoon) into the ground by dropping a 140-lb hammer a height of 30-inches at desired depth

• Recording the number of hammer blows re-quired to drive split-spoon a distance of 12 inches (in 3 or 4 Increments of 6 inches each)

• Auger is advanced* and an addi onal SPT is performed

• One SPT test is typically performed for every two to five feet

• Obtain two-inch diameter soil sample

*Drilling Methods May Vary— The predominant drilling methods used for SPT are open hole fluid rotary drilling and hollow-stem auger drilling.

SPT Procedure:

DE

PT

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Gravel Thickness[5.50"] (SP) SAND, tan, dry, medium dense, Crushed Limestone (SP) SAND, brown to tan, dry, medium dense, ne to medium Sand OOLITIC LIMESTONE, with sand, brown to tan, dry to moist

(SP) SAND, brown, moist to saturated, medium dense, trace roots, ne to medium sand OOLITIC LIMESTONE, white, saturated

(SP) SAND, gray, saturated, very loose, with white ooli c limestone fragments

OOLITIC LIMESTONE, white, saturated, trace sand

OOLITIC LIMESTONE, FRAGMENTS, tan, saturated

(SP) SAND, greenish gray, saturated, very loose

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-3

-8

-13

-18

-23

BL

O

W S/

6"

4-4-4-4 (8)

4-3-5-8 (8)

11-11-11-8 (22)

6-7-6-7 (13)

4-3-5-8 (8)

9-10-9-9 (19)

1-1-1-1 (2)

4-4-5-5 (9)

1-WOH-1-1

(1)

Plas c Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

CLIENT:

Toland Mizell Molner, LLC

PROJECT NAME:

Proposed Tank Farm Addi on - Miami VA Medical Center

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

25:3705 B-1

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

J & R Precision Drilling, Inc.

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

1201 NW 16th Street, Miami, Florida 33125

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING:

530892.4

EASTING:

913925.9

STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

7.0

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

9.00

7.50

BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

Truck

Mar 27 2021

Mar 27 2021

LOGGED BY:

JA

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Auto

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD

REC

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TON/SF

[FINES CONTENT] %

DE

PT

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-11

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

(SP) SAND, greenish gray, saturated, very loose OOLITIC LIMESTONE, tan, saturated, with interbedded sandstone

END OF DRILLING AT 35.0 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-28

-33

-38

-43

-48

-53

BL

O

W S/

6"

1-WOH-WOH-

WOH

(0)

4-5-6-5 (11)

Plas c Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

CLIENT:

Toland Mizell Molner, LLC

PROJECT NAME:

Proposed Tank Farm Addi on - Miami VA Medical Center

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

25:3705 B-1

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

J & R Precision Drilling, Inc.

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

1201 NW 16th Street, Miami, Florida 33125

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING:

530892.4

EASTING:

913925.9

STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

7.0

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

9.00

7.50

BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

Truck

Mar 27 2021

Mar 27 2021

LOGGED BY:

JA

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Auto

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD

REC

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TON/SF

[FINES CONTENT] %

6.0 CLOSING