Geotechnical_Report_-__Margarita_Rd._and_Sunrise_Blvd._Drainage_Imp.pdf

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

MARGARITA RD. AND SUNRISE BLVD. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

Maitland, Florida GEC Project No. 4354G

October 17, 2019 Revised October 31, 2019

Pegasus Engineering, LLC 301 West State Road 434, Suite 309 Winter Springs, Florida 32708

Attention: Mr. David Hamstra, P.E.

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

MARGARITA ROAD AND SUNRISE BOULEVARD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

DeBary, Florida GEC Project No. 4354G

Dear Mr. Hamstra:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC) is pleased to submit this Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the above-referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. 9659G dated January 31, 2019. The purpose of this investigation was to explore shallow soil and groundwater conditions at the project site and to use the information obtained to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the proposed underdrains. This report describes our exploration procedures, exhibits the data obtained and presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project.

GEC appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and we trust that the information contained in this report is sufficient for your current needs. Should you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact us.

GEC Project No. 4354G ii Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

Margarita Rd. and Sunrise Blvd. Drainage Improvements

Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

919 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, Florida 32814 Certificate of Authorization No. 5882

Ryan J. Petersen Daniel C. Stanfill, P.E.

Engineering Intern Senior Vice President

Florida License No. 42763

RJP/DCS/alc

This Report has been digitally signed and sealed by Daniel C. Stanfill, P.E. on the time and date stamp shown using digital signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

The official record of this report is the electronic file signed and sealed under Rule 61G 15-23.004, F.A.C.

GEC Project No. 4354G iii Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 NRCS SOIL SURVEY REVIEW

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 CPT Soundings

3.2 Machine Auger Borings

3.3 Groundwater Measurement

3.4 Piezometer Installation

3.5 Field Permeability Tests

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 SUBSURFACE DATA

5.1 Soil Boring Results

5.2 Groundwater Levels

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Underdrains

6.2 Pipe Bedding, Backfill and Compaction

6.3 Lateral Earth Pressure

6.4 Foundation Support and Estimated Settlements of Structures

6.5 Earth Pressure on Shoring and Bracing

6.6 Temporary Dewatering

6.7 Utility Excavations

7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT

APPENDIX

Figure 1: USGS Quadrangle and NRCS Soil Survey Maps Figure 2: Boring Location Plan with Muck Probe Results Figure 3 - 4: Soil Boring Results

Table 5: Piezometer Monitoring Log Table 6: Summary of Groundwater Levels and Recommended Permeability Rates

Field Permeability Test Calculations

GEC Project No. 4354G 1 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site is located at the intersection of Margarita Road and Sunrise Boulevard in DeBary, Florida.

More specifically the project begins on Margarita Road approximately 130 feet north of Sunrise Boulevard and extends south for approximately 280 feet and continues on Sunrise Boulevard beginning at Margarita Road and extending approximately 400 feet east.

GEC understands that groundwater is seeping through the ground surface in several locations along the project site. More specifically at the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Margarita Rd. and Sunrise Blvd. and also on the north side of Sunrise Blvd. approximately 70 feet east of the intersection.

We also understand drainage improvements include approximately 600 linear feet of underdrains located on the east side of Margarita road and the north and south sides of Sunrise Boulevard.

The approximate project area is depicted on an excerpt from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map shown on Figure 1 in the Appendix. According to the USGS Sanford, Florida Quadrangle Map, the existing ground surface elevation at the project site is approximately +55 to +40 feet NGVD.

2.0 NRCS SOIL SURVEY REVIEW

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Lake County, Florida was reviewed for near-surface soil and groundwater information at the site. The NRCS Soil Survey map of the site vicinity is shown on the attached Figure 1. The NRCS soils near the project site are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

NRCS Soil Survey Classifications

Unit No.

Soil Name Depth

(inches) Soil Description

Unified Classification

Symbol

Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater

(feet)

Hydrologic group

Apopka fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

0 – 6 Fine sand SP, SP-SM

--- A 6 – 62 Fine sand SP, SP-SM

62 – 80 Sandy loam, sandy clay loam

SC, SC-SM

Information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey should be considered very general and may be outdated. Therefore, it may not be reflective of actual soil and groundwater conditions, particularly if recent development in the site vicinity has modified soil conditions or

GEC Project No. 4354G 2 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation surface/subsurface drainage. The information obtained from the soil borings presented in this report should be considered a current characterization of actual site conditions.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

In addition to consulting the sources of information previously discussed for regional and site-specific soils data, GEC conducted a subsurface exploration to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions at the project site, which included the following:

• Five auger borings to a depth of 10 feet each with 5 piezometers installed to depths ranging from 5 feet to 10 feet below the existing ground surface to monitor groundwater levels in the area of the proposed underdrains.

• Three CPT soundings to a depth of 25 feet below existing ground in the areas of the proposed stormwater improvements.

• Three auger borings to a depth of 15 feet below existing ground in areas of proposed stormwater improvements with 3 permeability tests.

The boring locations were surveyed by Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp. (SSMC) for horizontal and vertical control using datum NAVD88. The approximate boring locations are depicted on Figure 2 in the Appendix.

3.1 CPT Soundings

The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-5578. The cone penetrometer is pushed into the soil by means of a hydraulic thrust system at a constant rate of 24 to 48 inches per minute. The penetrometer tip has a cone angle of 60 degrees, a base diameter of 1.4 inches and a total area of 1.55 square inches. A friction sleeve with the same diameter as the base of the cone is located directly above the cone tip. Hollow push rods are used to advance the cone penetrometer in 3.3-foot (1 meter) increments. Point stress and local side friction are continuously measured during each 3.3-foot (1 meter) push by transducers located in the cone tip and friction sleeve. An electric cable threaded through the push rods transmits the transducer signals to a computer for data processing and recording.

3.2 Machine Auger Borings

Machine auger borings were performed in general accordance with ASTM Procedure D-4700.

Machine auger borings were performed by hydraulically turning continuous flight, solid-stem, auger into the ground in 5-foot increments until the desired boring termination depth was achieved. The auger flights were retrieved in 5-foot increments, without further rotation of the auger, and the retrieved soil was examined by our technician prior to collection of representative

GEC Project No. 4354G 3 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation samples. The samples were placed in sealed jars and transported to GEC’s laboratory for further examination and limited laboratory testing as needed.

3.3 Groundwater Measurement

A GEC engineering technician measured the depth to groundwater in the boreholes at the time of drilling and again after approximately 24 hours. Once the 24-hour groundwater measurement was recorded, the boreholes were then backfilled with soil cuttings to prevailing ground surface.

3.4 Piezometer Installation

To more accurately measure groundwater levels and to evaluate these levels over time, GEC installed temporary piezometers. These piezometers typically consist of a 2-inch diameter schedule 40, PVC pipe with 0.01 inch wide slots at one end to allow groundwater to flow into the pipe. The slotted portion of the pipe generally extends for about 3 feet from the end of the pipe.

The bottom end of the piezometer has a cap installed. The piezometers were installed by augering a hole using continuous flight augers to a depth at least three feet below the anticipated groundwater level. A piezometer was then inserted to the bottom of the augered hole. When the piezometer is installed in sandy or slightly silty soils, no additional sand is placed in the annular space between the piezometer and the augered hole. In silty or clayey sand or in clay soils, clean sand soil was placed in the annular space between the pipe and the sides of the borehole. No organic, silty, clayey, or other low permeability soils were placed in the annular space. The riser was then fitted with a push-on PVC cap. Groundwater depths were measured within the piezometer a minimum of 24 hours after the installation was completed. Additional monitoring of the water level in the piezometer was performed over time to further evaluate groundwater levels. After the final level readings were completed, the piezometers were removed and the borehole was properly backfilled.

3.5 Field Permeability Tests

Constant and/or falling head permeability tests were performed in the field at this site. The field permeability tests were performed by driving a 3-inch diameter casing into the ground to the desired test depth and washing the soil out of the casing with water. The casing was backfilled with quartz gravel to about 30 inches above the bottom of the casing and was then raised a distance of about 24 inches.

When a constant head permeability test was conducted, water was added to the casing to achieve a stable water level. Once the water level stabilized, the flow required to maintain the stable water level over time was measured.

GEC Project No. 4354G 4 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

When a falling head permeability test was conducted, water was added to the casing to achieve a stable water level. Once the water level stabilized, the water source was taken away and the drop in water level in the casing with respect to time was recorded.

These relationships were used to calculate the permeability of the soil. Field permeability tests and calculations were performed in general conformance with NAVFAC DM-7.1-103 to 7.1-108.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples retrieved from the borings were tested in general accordance with Florida Standard Testing Methods (FM). Florida Standard Testing Methods are adaptations of recognized standard methods, e.g., ASTM and AASHTO, which have been modified to accommodate Florida’s geological conditions. The GEC laboratory is reviewed annually by the Construction Materials Engineering Council, Inc. (CMEC) to verify compliance with FM. Our laboratory testing program is summarized in the following table:

Table 2 Summary of Laboratory Testing Program

Type of Test Number of Tests Percent Fines (FM 1 - T88) 6 Atterberg Limits (AASHTO T 89/90) 2 Natural Moisture Content (FM 1 – T265) 2

The individual results of our laboratory tests are shown adjacent to the soil profiles at the approximate depths from which the tested samples were obtained on the Soil Boring Results sheet (Figure 3) in the Appendix.

5.0 SUBSURFACE DATA

Detailed results of subsurface conditions encountered at our boring locations are shown on Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix. The soils encountered in the borings were classified in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (SP, SM, CH), and ASTM soils description (e.g. sand with silt). We based our soil classifications and descriptions on visual examination and the limited laboratory soil classification testing performed.

The borings indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations at the time of our field exploration. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels, at other locations of the subject site may differ from conditions we encountered at the boring locations. Moreover, conditions at the boring locations can change over time.

GEC Project No. 4354G 5 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

The depths and thicknesses of the subsurface strata indicated on the boring logs were interpolated between samples obtained at different depths in the borings. The actual transition between soil layers may be different than indicated. These stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes. Earthwork quantity estimates based on the results of the borings will vary from the actual quantities measured during construction.

5.1 Soil Boring Results

In general, the borings and soundings performed across the project site generally encountered fine sand to fine sand with silt to silty find sand (SP, SP-SM, SM) from the existing ground surface to an approximate elevation of +32. This layer was then followed by a clayey fine sand to sandy fat clay to fat clay layer to the maximum boring and sounding depth of 25 feet. Three of the borings, PZ-1, PZ-2 and PZ-4, did not encounter the clayey layer within the depth explored. Please refer to Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix for more detailed descriptions of the soils encountered.

r5.2 Groundwater Levels

Our technician identified the groundwater surface in the sounding and auger boreholes at elevations ranging from approximately +35.9 to +43.5 feet NAVD88. Groundwater elevations measured at all boreholes are presented in Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix. The groundwater elevations presented on these figures are based on surveyed ground surface elevations at each borehole location and the depth to groundwater measured by our technician in the field. The surveyed ground surface elevations were provided by SSMC.

Groundwater elevations in the piezometers were measured once a month from February to July 2019 and ranged in elevation from +26.6 +44.8 feet NAVD. The highest groundwater elevations were measured in PZ-1 at the north end of Margarita Road, and the lowest groundwater elevations were measured in PZ-5 at the south end of Margarita Road. Groundwater elevations had a range of

1.0 to 2.7 feet of variability within the time they were monitored. The encountered groundwater levels in the piezometers can be found in Table 5 in the Appendix.

Groundwater levels can vary seasonally and with changes in subsurface conditions between boring locations. Alterations in surface and/or subsurface drainage brought about by site development can also affect groundwater levels. Therefore, groundwater depths measured at different times or at different locations on the site can be expected to vary from those measured by GEC during this investigation.

For purposes of this report, estimated seasonal high groundwater levels are defined as groundwater levels that are anticipated at the end of the wet season during a “normal rainfall” year under current site conditions. We define a “normal rainfall” year as a year in which rainfall

GEC Project No. 4354G 6 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation quantity and distribution were at or near historical averages. Groundwater levels are also dependent on adjacent lake levels.

Seasonal high groundwater levels are estimated to range from approximately elevations of +30.1 to +45.5 feet NAVD88 at the soil boring locations. The encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels are depicted adjacent to the boring profiles on Figure 3 and 4 in the Appendix.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based in part on the data obtained from a limited number of soil samples and groundwater measurements obtained from widely-spaced borings. If variations from the subsurface conditions described in this report do become evident during construction or if the project characteristics described in this report change, GEC should be retained to reevaluate this report’s conclusions and recommendations in light of such changes. We also recommend that GEC be allowed to review the construction plans prior to bidding so that we can verify that our recommendations were properly interpreted.

6.1 Underdrains

We understand underdrains are proposed on this project to artificially lower the groundwater that has been seeping out of the ground surface. Based on our review of project topographic survey data and our boring results the site conditions are suitable for the proposed underdrains. Please refer to Table 6 in the Appendix for a summary of the recommended permeability rates. GEC recommends that Type III underdrains should be utilized with a minimum underdrain pipe diameter of 6 inches. Underdrains should be installed and designed in accordance with FDOT Standard Plans Index Nos. 440-001 and 440-002. Our calculations of horizontal permeability are provided in Appendix D.

6.2 Pipe Bedding, Backfill and Compaction

In general, other than the plastic clay soils, the soils encountered at the boring locations are generally suitable for use as pipe bedding soil and backfill soil. All fill soils should be selected in accordance with Index 505 of the FDOT Design Standards.

Seasonal high groundwater levels were estimated to range from… +30.1 to +45.5…

We… recommend that GEC be allowed to review the construction plans prior to bidding…

GEC Project No. 4354G 7 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

The majority of the near-surface soils encountered in our borings classified as fine sand with silt (SP, SP-SM) should be treated as Select (S) material. Any plastic clay materials (SC, CH) if encountered should be removed beneath pipe alignments as discussed below. In addition, organic soils (PT) are not suitable for use as pipe bedding soil or backfill soil and should be removed if encountered during pipe installation as discussed below. Plastic soils were encountered in all of the borings and soundings performed except PZ-1 and PZ-2.

Ideally, pipe bedding and backfill soils should consist of non-plastic sands with less than about 12% fines content and should not contain any significant amount of organic substances (less than 3% by weight) or other deleterious materials. The contractor should adhere to the following recommendations for bedding fill placement and compaction.

• Remove any soft, loose, or organic soils from below the pipe invert elevation, for the full width of the trench and to the depth required to reach suitable bedding soil as described above.

• Any clay or organic soils (PT) encountered at the pipe invert depth should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of two feet below the pipe invert and backfilled with suitable compacted bedding material.

• Compact pipe bedding soil and trench backfill soil to a minimum of 95% of the soil’s Modified Proctor maximum dry density to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the bottom of pipe.

• Excavate and shape bedding soils to accommodate pipe “bells,” valves, and fittings to completely support each pipe section and help to eliminate point loading conditions.

• Place fill in level lifts no thicker than 12 inches.

• Compact each backfill lift to a minimum of 95% of the soil's modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-180 for each lift of fill placed.

• Compaction tests should be performed for each run of pipe between manholes or at least one test per 300 lineal feet, with at least one test at an elevation of 1 foot above the top of pipe. In addition, one test should be run for every foot of backfill from 1 foot above the top of pipe to finished grade elevation.

Any plastic materials (SC, CH) should be removed beneath pipe alignments as discussed below.

…organic soils (PT) are not suitable for use as pipe bedding soil or backfill soil...

GEC Project No. 4354G 8 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

• Allow an Engineering Technician, working under the direction of a registered Geotechnical Engineer, to perform in-place density tests to verify that the recommended degree of compaction has been achieved.

• Install sheeting and bracing or properly designed trench shields, if required, to support the sides of excavations during utility installation.

• All excavations including utility trenches, should comply with the recommendations included in the Utility Excavations section of this report.

• Where utility lines will traverse roadways and/or other permanent structures, such as sidewalks, the backfill should be compacted to 98% of the soil’s Modified Proctor maximum dry density for a depth of 2 feet below ground surface.

• Exercise extreme caution if vibratory compaction equipment is utilized near existing structures. Operate roller in the static mode if excessive vibrations are experienced by any near-by structures or if the soil subgrade becomes unstable. Nearby structures may be adversely affected by vibratory rolling operations. Provisions should be made to monitor the adjacent neighborhood for excessive vibrations.

6.3 Lateral Earth Pressure

This section is for use in design of any buried structures along the drainage pipe and outfall pipe alignments. These recommendations are applicable for excavations that will penetrate the surficial sandy soils classified as SP, SP-SM, and SM on the boring logs included with this report.

Lateral earth pressures for design of below grade and/or earth retaining structures can be calculated using a hydrostatic pressure distribution from an equivalent fluid having varying densities for various conditions. These values assume sandy soil (SP, SP-SM, SM) with an angle of internal friction of about 30 degrees and a moist unit weight of 110 pcf and a saturated unit weight of 115 pcf. The table below summarizes the recommended equivalent fluid densities for active, passive and at-rest conditions and drained or undrained conditions. The actual lateral earth pressure will be a function of both the soil unit weight (submerged or moist) and the depth below ground surface.

Table 3 Lateral Earth Pressure

Lateral Earth Pressure Condition

Equivalent Fluid Density Undrained (pcf)

Equivalent Fluid Density Drained (pcf)

Active 80 37 Passive 158* 330 At-rest 89 55

*Note - This value is a recommended conservative Equivalent Fluid Density that does not include the unit weight of water.

GEC Project No. 4354G 9 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

Undrained conditions assume that full water pressure can develop behind the structure, in addition to the retained earth pressure. Drained conditions assume hydrostatic (water) pressure cannot develop due to positive drainage behind the structure, and includes only the moist soil earth pressure. The designer should use the appropriate condition and factor of safety based on the specific design and groundwater conditions.

6.4 Foundation Support and Estimated Settlements of Structures

Manholes and other miscellaneous structures can be designed for the following maximum vertical bearing capacities:

• 1,500 psf on undisturbed natural granular soils.

• 2,500 psf on compacted natural or backfilled subgrade; this value assumes compaction of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density (ASTM D-1557) for a depth of 2 feet below the structure.

Settlements of the miscellaneous structures are anticipated to be negligible due to the effective net reduction in load when the existing soils are replaced with the structures and any organic soils are removed following the recommendations on this report.

The miscellaneous structures should be designed to resist hydrostatic buoyancy forces (flotation) that would be present when the groundwater is at the estimated seasonal high levels and the structure is completely empty. An appropriate safety factor should also be included in the design of the structure.

6.5 Earth Pressure on Shoring and Bracing

If temporary shoring and bracing is required for any excavations, the system should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure. The design earth pressure will be a function of the flexibility of the shoring and bracing system. For a flexible system restrained laterally by braces placed as the excavation proceeds, the design earth pressure for shoring and bracing can be computed using a uniform earth pressure distribution with depth. If dewatering is required, it is recommended that well points be used to dewater around the excavations. For such dewatered excavations, we recommend using the following uniform pressure distribution over the full braced height as follows:

GEC Project No. 4354G 10 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

Uniform Soil Pressure Distribution, p = 0.65 KaγsH p = uniform pressure distribution for design of braced excavation Ka = coefficient of active earth pressure = 0.33 γs = unit weight of saturated soils = 115 pcf H = depth of excavation

An appropriate factor of safety should be applied for the design of the braced excavations. Lateral pressure distributions determined in accordance with the above do not take hydrostatic pressures or surcharge loads into account. To the extent that such pressures and forces may act on the walls, they should be included in the design.

Construction equipment and excavated fill should be kept a minimum distance of 5 feet from the edge of the braced or shored excavation. Backfill material placed adjacent to (5 feet away from) the braced or shored excavation should have a minimum slope of 2H : 1V.

6.6 Temporary Dewatering

Temporary dewatering may be required along the proposed pipeline alignments (depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction and final design grades) to facilitate stable excavations and placement and compaction of fill during construction. The contractor should be required to provide a dewatering system which maintains groundwater levels at least 2 feet below compaction surfaces, including the bottom of excavations. A system of ditches and sumps may be sufficient in some instances to achieve adequate dewatering, but the contractor should be prepared to install wellpoint dewatering systems as necessary to maintain groundwater levels 2 feet beneath the bottom of excavations.

Additionally, the contractor must provide positive site drainage during the site preparation and fill placement. Surface runoff should not be allowed to accumulate. Temporary rim ditches may be required to facilitate site preparation.

6.7 Utility Excavations

The owner and the contractor should be familiar with local, state and federal safety regulations, including current Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) excavation and trench safety standards. Construction site safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should also be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and operations of the construction.

Temporary dewatering may be required along the proposed outfall pipe alignment…

GEC Project No. 4354G 11 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation

The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should not exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations; e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926. OSHA regulations are strictly enforced and, if not followed, the owner, contractor, earthwork subcontractor or utility subcontractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The soil encountered in the borings performed by GEC at this site is primarily sand with varying amounts of silt. We anticipate that OSHA will classify these materials as Type C. OSHA recommends a maximum temporary slope inclination of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical for this soil type.

7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT

GEC has prepared this report for the exclusive use of our client, Pegasus Engineering, LLC. and The City of DeBary, and for specific application to our client’s project. GEC will not be held responsible for interpretation or use of this report for other than its intended purpose.

The sole purpose of the borings performed by GEC at this site was to obtain indications of subsurface conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. GEC has not evaluated the site for the potential presence of contaminated soil or groundwater, nor have we subjected any soil samples to analysis for contaminants.

GEC has strived to provide the services described in this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing in Central Florida. No other representation is made or implied in this document.

The conclusions or recommendations of this report should be disregarded if the nature, design, or location of the facilities is changed. If such changes are contemplated, GEC should be retained to review the new plans to assess the applicability of this report in light of proposed changes.

APPENDIX

USGS QUADRANGLE AND

NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAPS

99 17

J:\Jobs - Drafting\4354G Margarita Sunrise\4354Gquad.mxd 10/17/2019

Geotechnical and Environmental 919 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, FL 32814

PH (407) 898-1818 FAX (407) 898-1837

Certificate of Authorization No. 00005882

DANIEL C. STANFILL P.E. NO. 42763

PROJECT NO.

4354G USGS QUADRANGLE AND NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAPS

MARGARITA ROAD AND

SUNRISE BOULEVARD

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

Consultants, Inc.

FIGURE

NO.

10/17/2019

DATE

SKR

DRAWN BY

RJP

CHECKED BY

DCS

CHECKED BY

0 2,0001,000

Feet:

USGS Sanford, FL Quadrangle Map Dtaed: 1988

NRCS Soil Survey of Volusia County, FL Volusia County Map Unit Legend 1 - Apopka fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Approximate Project Site

Approximate Project Site

GEC

§̈¦4

£¤17

BORING LOCATION PLAN

AB-3

AB-2

AB-1

CPT-3

CPT-2

CPT-1

PZ-5

PZ-4

PZ-3

PZ-2

PZ-1

J:\Jobs - Drafting\4354G Margarita Sunrise\4354G.mxd 10/17/2019

Geotechnical and Environmental

: 919 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, FL 32814

PH (407) 898-1818 FAX (407) 898-1837

Certificate of Authorization No. 00005882

DANIEL C. STANFILL P.E. NO. 42763

GEC PROJECT NO.

4354G BORING LOCATION PLAN

MARGARITA ROAD AND

SUNRISE BOULEVARD

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS

Consultants, Inc.

FIGURE

NO.

10/17/2019

DATE

SKR

DRAWN BY

RJP

CHECKED BY

DCS

CHECKED BY

0 10050

Feet

APPROXIMATE CPT SOUNDING LOCATION

APPROXIMATE AUGER BORING LOCATION

APPROXIMATE PIEZOMETER LOCATION"'

SOIL BORING RESULTS

PIEZOMETER MONITORING LOG

Table 5 Piezometer Monitoring Log

Margarita Road and Sunrise Boulevard Drainage Improvements GEC Project No. 4354G

Encountered Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Encountered Groundwater

Elevation (Ft NAVD88)

Encountered Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Encountered Groundwater

Elevation (Ft NAVD88)

Encountered Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Encountered Groundwater

Elevation (Ft NAVD88)

Encountered Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Encountered Groundwater

Elevation (Ft NAVD88)

Encountered Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Encountered Groundwater

Elevation (Ft NAVD88)

Encountered Groundwater

Depth (ft)

Encountered Groundwater

Elevation (Ft NAVD88)

PZ-1 2/26/2019 10 53.56 48.7 5 +43.7 5.2 +43.5 5.8 +42.9 5.95 +42.8 6.4 +42.3 3.9 +44.8 PZ-2 2/26/2019 10 46.91 41.9 2.5 +39.4 1.9 +40.0 2.3 +39.6 2.5 +39.4 2.8 +39.1 1.05 +40.9 PZ-3 2/26/2019 7.5 43.02 40.5 3 +37.5 1.4 +39.1 2.2 +38.3 2.3 +38.2 3 +37.5 0.3 +40.2 PZ-4 2/26/2019 6 43.46 39.6 3 +36.6 3.7 +35.9 4.5 +35.1 4.6 +35.0 5.2 +34.4 3.1 +36.5 PZ-5 2/26/2019 5 32.59 31.6 4 +27.6 5 +26.6 5 +26.6 4.8 +26.8 4.8 +26.8 4.5 +27.1

Piezometer Location

Date Installed

Installation Depth (ft)

Monitoring Well Cap Elevation

(ft NAVD88)

2/26/2019 Ground Surface

Elevation (ft NAVD88)

3/1/2019 4/2/2019 5/2/2019 6/5/2019 7/12/2019

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL AND

RECOMMENDED PERMEABILITY RATES

Table 6 Summary of Groundwater Levels and Recommended Permeability Rates

Margarita Rd. and Sunrise Blvd. Drainage Improvements GEC Project No. 4354G

Encountered Groundwater

Depth

Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater

Depth

(ft. NAVD88) (ft) (ft) (ft. NAVD88) (ft/day) (ft/day)

PZ-1 +53.6 5.2 3.2 +45.5 --- ---

PZ-2 +46.9 1.9 0.0 +41.9 --- ---

AB-2 +40.9 1.1 0.0 +40.9 27.7 27.7

PZ-3 +43.0 1.4 0.0 +40.5 --- ---

AB-1 +40.8 2.5 0.5 +40.3 11.2 11.2

PZ-4 +43.5 3.7 0.7 +38.9 --- ---

AB-3 +38.9 2.2 0.5 +38.4 4.4 4.4

PZ-5 +32.6 GNE @ 10' 1.5 +30.1 --- ---

* Ground Surface Elevations were surveyed by Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp.

** Permeability rates do not include a factor of safety

*Ground Surface

Elevation at Boring

Location

Boring No.

Groundwater Recommendations

Seasonal High Groundwater

Elevation

**Horizontal Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity

**Unsaturated Vertical

Infiltration Rate

FIELD PERMEABILITY TEST CALCULATIONS

AB-1 AB-2 AB-3

2 - 4 3 - 5 3 - 5

SP SP SP-SM

3.00 3.00 3.00

3.0 2.0 2.0

2.0 2.0 2.5

2.0 2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

21.0 10.9 60.0

11.2 27.7 4.4

0 Initial Piezometric Head (Starting Water Level at Top of Casing)

#REF! Final Piezometric Head

Transformation Ratio

Assuming k v =0.5k h

From NAVFAC TM 5-818-5* Figure 3-5

*(Formula Applicable When: m * L/D > 4)

Calculations

Input From Test

Pond No.

Test Location Test Depth (ft)

Time for Water Level Drop, Δt (sec)

FALLING HEAD FIELD PERMEABILITY

TEST CALCULATIONS

Margarita Rd. and Sunrise Blvd. Drainage Imp.

Volusia County, Florida GEC Project No. 4354G

Field Horizontal Permeability Rate, k h (ft/day)

Soil Type Diameter of Gravel Pack & Casing, d = D (in) Riser Height, H r (ft) Groundwater Depth, D wt (ft) Length of Gravel Pack, L (ft) Water Level Drop (Drawdown), D wl (ft)

Dwl Hr d

L

D

H2 Dwt

H1v h k k m = ln )(8 ln

H H tL D

Lm d kh wtr DHH +=1 w lDHH −= 12

2=m