The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About111 S Oregon Ave 97-2193 Soil testA Building Division Receipts Code Description No. of items Cost per Item Total BE BuildingDept Reimbursement of Expense a. ryi b. c. code is used for: Duplicate CO 10.00 Permits Shipped from storage 20.22 Copies photocopies 1 sided $.15 each 2 sided $.20 each CY Certificate of Competency* a. b. c. Initial Comp Card $75..00 75.00 Renewal - Master $60.00 60.00 Renewal - Journeyman $30.00 30.00 each comp card issued for two years C1 Cost Recovery Fee credit card pr cessing fee for payments over $500.00 C2 Cost Rec ery Fee - Building Permits ONLY ' credit card processing fee for payments over $500.00 w 1 Ca/*- ue,\-C c- C3- (() rt, G Qvt &Iyy aL- 0 Geotechnical Exploration ACI Income Fund P.D. State Road 46 and Towne Center Boulevard Sanford, Florida r7- Environmental GeotechnicalP.-p,jAFjConstruction Consulting • Engineering • Testing Infommation To Build Oi i r Environmental Geotechnical Construction Consulting • Engineering • Testing i TO: Schrimsher Properties 600 East Colonial Drive Suite 100 Orlando, Fl 32803 November 7, 1995 Project Number 757-55327 ATTENTION: Mr. Frank Schrimsher President SUBJECT: ACI Income Fund P.D. State Road 46 and Towne Center Boulevard Sanford, Florida Dear Mr. Schrimsher: As requested, PSI has completed a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation in connection with the proposed development at the subject site. Presented herein is a summary of our findings together with our conclusions and engineering recommendations for building foundation design, pavement section design, and site preparation procedures. PROTECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed development will take place on the property southwest of the intersection of State Road 46 and Towne Center Boulevard in Sanford, Florida (Section 29, Township 19 South, Range 30 East). For your reference, we have included a site vicinity map on the attached Figure 1. Based on our review of the site plan provided to us by Tipton Associates, Inc., the project civil engineer, it is our understanding that the new development proposed for the subject site comprises three (3) restaurant structures, a service station with fuel island and overhead canopy and associated paved parking and drive areas. Topographic information shown on the site plan indicates that the existing grades range from near +27 to +35 feet, NGVD. The existing development at the site, which will be removed to accon-unodate the new construction, includes several single story structures and paved surfaces. The proposed buildings have footprints ranging from about 3,000 to 8,000 square feet and we assume that they will be single -story masonry block frame structures. For the purposes of our foundation analysis, we assume that maximum column and wall loads will be on the order of 60 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Refer to Sheet 1 for a general layout of the site. inaiion i.f i uild Gr9 PSI • 1675 Lee Road • Winter Park, FL 32789 • Phone 407/645-5560 • Fax 407/645-1320 Schrimsher Properties ` `- Project Number 757-55327 If any of the above information is incorrect, please inform PSI so that we may revise this report accordingly. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The purposes of our study were to explore and evaluate the general subsurface conditions at the site and to render geotechnical engineering recommendations for building foundation design, pavement section design and site preparation. The scope of our investigation consisted of performing ten (10) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of 15 feet below existing grade within the building footprints, and six (6) 7-foot deep auger borings within proposed paved areas. The upper 4 feet of the majority of the SPT borings were manually augered as a safety precaution for possible buried utilities. The approximate boring locations are indicated on Sheet 1. SUBSOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The soil types encountered at the boring locations are presented in the form of soil profiles on the attached Sheet 2. The information presented is based on visual examination of the recovered soil samples and the interpretation of the boring logs by the project geotechnical engineer. Also included with the boring profiles are the "N"-values for the SPT borings and stabilized groundwater level measurements referenced from existing grades. The "N"-values have been empirically correlated with various soil properties and are considered to be indicative of the relative density of cohesionless soils. The soil conditions observed at the boring locations are generally consistent across the site. From the existing grades to depths ranging from 1.5 to 5.5 feet, the soils comprise very loose to medium dense, light to dark gray, slightly silty to silty fine sands. Trace roots and organics were observed in the upper 6 inches of the soil column_ Below those depths we observed loose to medium dense, light to dark, grey to brown fine sands to silty fine sands to depths about 12 feet below grades. These soils grade into very loose to loose fine sands and slightly silty fine sands to the terminal boring depths. Upon completion of the borings performed on October 25 and 26, 1995, we measured stabilized groundwater levels in the open boreholes. The depths to the groundwater table on those dates ranged from 1.2 to 4.8 feet below existing grade. Fluctuations of the groundwater levels at the site should be expected due to variations in seasonal rainfall. It is our opinion that the observed groundwater levels are near the normal wet season high groundwater levels. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of the investigation and our experience with similar subsoil conditions, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for development of the proposed construction from r Schrimsher Properties Project Number 757-55327 3- a geotechnical engineering perspective. The foundation soils are capable of satisfactorily supporting the proposed structures on conventionally designed shallow foundations. Mechanical densification will be required in order to prepare the foundation subgrade for support of shallow footings. Conventional site clearing, grubbing and densification as outlined in the attached Appendix A should render the building and pavement areas suitable for construction. Design/construction should be cognizant of the relatively high groundwater conditions at the site. Foundation Support For design purposes, we recommend that footings be proportioned for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf), provided that the near surface foundation soils are improved by mechanical densification per recommendations presented in Appendix A. We anticipate total settlements on the order of 1-inch or less for those loading conditions. In addition, minimum footing widths of 2.0 and 3.0 feet should be maintained for continuous wall and isolated column footings, respectively. The footings should be embedded no less than 24 inches below adjacent compacted grade. All fill material should consist of clean fine sand that is placed and compacted as described in Appendix A. Floor Slabs After the completion of site clearing operations, the ground floor slab for the proposed structures may be constructed on compacted suitable fill material. Fill soils should be compacted to a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The floor slabs should be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as practical. Proper joints should be provided at the junctions of the slab and foundation system so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage. In as much as the floor slabs will be supporting live loads, it is recommended that construction joints in the floor slabs be provided with a key or dowels to permit the proper transfer of vertical loads. Large floor areas should be provided with joints at frequent intervals to compensate for changes in the volume of the concrete (e.g. shrinkage, expansion). If moisture intrusion into the floor slab is not desired, an impermeable membrane should be installed on the soil subgrade before the slab is cast. Normally, 6-mil. thick polyethylene film is satisfactory as a subgrade moisture barrier. However, some floor coverings may have a comparatively sensitive tolerance to moisture flux that a thin polyethylene film cannot suppress. Under these conditions, other types of moisture membranes should be considered. ffl7awj, Schrimsher Properties -4- Project Number 757-55327 Pavement Design Considerations The results of the test borings performed indicate that the subgrade soil conditions are of suitable texture and, upon preparation as recommended in the attached Appendix A, would be capable of supporting a flexible (limerock base), semi -flexible (soil -cement base), or rigid concrete) pavement section. The estimated seasonal groundwater levels at this site should be considered in the choice of a base material and in the planning of pavement grades. If finished pavement grades permit a separation of at least 18 inches between the estimated wet season groundwater level and the bottom of the pavement base, then either soil -cement or limerock base material may be used. Where the separation will be consistently less than 18 inches, soil -cement would be the preferred base course and pavement underdrains may be necessary. Because pavement underdrains may clog during the design life of the pavement structure requiring periodic maintenance and potentially causing pavement structure deterioration, we strongly recommend site filling in lieu of groundwater level control from pavement underdrains. If limerock is selected, we recommend the thickness of the base be a minimum of 6 inches within the parking areas and not less than 8 inches within heavy traffic areas such as main driveways and delivery areas likely to be serviced by trucks. In addition, a stabilized subbase would be required with a minimum Florida Bearing Value (FBV) of 50 psi with the same thickness as the limerock base. Both the subbase and base should be compacted to a minimum dry density equivalent to 95 percent of the soils' Modified Proctor maximum dry density per AASHTO T-180. If soil -cement is used, the base thickness should be a minimum of 6 inches within the parking areas and 8 inches within the heavy traffic areas specified above. For a soil -cement base pavement section, a stabilized subbase would not be required. However, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum dry density of 95 percent of the soils' Modified Proctor maximum dry density as tested to a depth of 1 foot below the pavement base. The soil -cement base should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the Standard Proctor Density per AASHTO T-134 and should have a minimum 7-day laboratory design compressive strength of 300 psi. The asphaltic concrete wearing surface should be Type S-3 and should have a minimum thickness of 1 h inches within parking areas and 1 k inches within the heavy traffic areas. The surface should be rolled to produce a minimum density equivalent to 95 percent of the laboratory density as determined by the Marshall Stability test method. For a concrete pavement section, we recommend a minimum thickness of 6 inches within parking areas and 8 inches within the heavy traffic areas speied above. The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4500 psi. The subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum dry density of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T-180 to a depth of 1 foot. All testing should be conducted in accordance with City of Sanford and/or Seminole County WS nts. Materials used in the construction of the pavement section should conform Schrimsher Properties Project Number 757-55327 5- to the latest edition of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Standards for Road and Bridge Construction. LIMITATIONS The geotechnical investigation and recommendations submitted herein are based on the data obtained from the soil borings presented on Sheet 2. The report does not reflect any variations which may occur adjacent or between the borings. The nature and extent of the variations between the borings may not become evident until during construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report after performing on -site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations. This study investigated soil conditions within the zone of stress influence of typical shallow foundations. Evaluation of deeper soil conditions and an assessment of the potential for sinkhole activity was beyond the scope of this study. PSI appreciates the opportunity to provide our services on this project and we trust that the information presented is sufficient for your immediate needs. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, or as we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, PSI Aobertro . pke, E.I. Staff Engineer rc Edward F. Mi a rE. Project Engineer Fl. Registration No. 47535 RT/EM/JWC: arc R-A75755327.NO7 cc: Tipton Associates Inc. Attention: Mr. Todd Hudson Vie 7 Ja C per, P.E. r technical ' eer R istration No. 36330 APPENDIX Vtlfa-aA;Fj Schrimsher Properties A-1 Project Number 757-55327 APPENDIX A Preparation of the foundation soils should proceed in a conventional manner, consisting of removing existing structures and buried utilities, clearing and grubbing the topsoil, roots, and other organic matter or debris followed by excavating or filling to the design grades and densification of the natural deposits and fill materials. The foundation soils should be firm and unyielding. If any soft or unstable areas are delineated during preparation of foundation soils the deficient soil will have to be replaced with suitable compacted fill. The following are our recommendations for overall site preparation work and mechanical densification. These recommendations, parts of which may be incorporated into the project general specifications, are made as a guide for the design engineer. 1. The entire construction area including, where possible, a minimum margin of 7 feet beyond the perimeter of the building and parking/drive areas should be cleared to remove existing structures and buried utilities, topsoil, roots, vegetation, construction debris and other deleterious material. Unsuitable material generated during this general site stripping operation should be removed from the site and disposed of as directed by the Owner. 2. After clearing, stripping and excavating or filling to bearing elevations, the foundation support soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) to a depth of 2 feet below footing bottoms and slabs. The bottom of any excavations should be compacted as described above for a depth of 1 foot. Vibratory compaction equipment should not be used within 100 feet of any existing structures. 3. Place fill material as required. Fill soils should consist of non -organic sand with less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Fill should be placed in thin (12-inch maximum) loose lifts and compacted as described above. 4. We recommend that soils in the proposed parking/drive areas be compacted, as described above, to a depth of 1 foot below the bottom of the pavement base course. 5. Temporary dewatering may be required at this site to facilitate the necessary excavation and compaction operations. 6. A representative of PSI should be retained to provide on -site inspections and testing of the compaction and filling operations so that proper documentation of the required minimum compaction and compliance with the recommendations above can be provided. REFERENCE: U.S.G.S. "SANFORD, FLORIDA" QUADRANGLE MAP SECTION: 29 ISSUED: 1965 TOWNSHIP: 19 SOUTH PHOTOREVISED: 1980 RANGE: 30 EAST SCALE: 1" = 2000' VICINITY MAP ACI INCOME FUND P.D. STATE ROAD 46 AND TOWNE CENTER BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA A Environmental kGeotechnical Construction Consulting • Engineering • Testing GROWN: DJW SCALE NOTED Paw. NO: 757-55327 CHKD: RT DATE: 10-31-95 FIGURE: 1 I 10 q STATE ROAD 46 I UE OREGON A AB-4 I OVERHEAD IPOWER - ONES I TB-6 TB-3 ' I TB-8 TB-5 TB-4 AB-3 I AB-16 I TB-7 I I AB-1 1 TB-1 PROPOSED BUILDING ITYPICAL) TB-2 AB-2 AB-5 I o0 TB-9 O'er MCI 1101z EN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ACI INCOME FUND P.D. STATE ROAD 46 AND TOWNE CENTER BLVD. SANFORD, FLORIDA Envtr-onmentat Geotechnical Construction Coneuftha • Engkwerbg • Tea V DRAWN: DJW sc u E: NOTED PROD. NO: 757-55327 CHKD: RT DATE: 10-31-95 SHEET: 1 of 2 LEGEND DARK GRAY SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE ROOTSCD (SP-SM). VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE El O LIGHT TO DARK TO GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND, (SP), MEDIUM DENSEVERYLOOSE Q33O DARK FINE GRAY TO SAND_ (SPY AWN FINE SAND TO SLIGHTLY SIL 1SP-SM). VEF - I OOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE LIGHT TO DARK BRAY SLIGHTLY JL iY TO SILTY FINE SANDOO (FILL), (SP-SM),, .3M), VERY LOOSE REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND TO SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND, m O (SP), (SP-SM), LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE SP) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP SYMBOL 2.5\ DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN FEET: 10/25/95 TO 10/26/95 N STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT TB-1 TB-2 N N 0 1.3 3 :.. O 1.2• 3 :.. O 3 9 ... O 7 _ 12 2 2.8T 22'. 24. 513 19. O3 19 21 16 . 16 L 12 8. 1318 2 Z 10 8 .::. 13 FLLLJ O O o 15 F - 4 ::: 4 20 TB-9 N0 f 3 2 g 46f 42 5 4: ui li 16 0 Z 18.. 29 19 w 10 28 ... 0 0 TB-10 WIN 51 Q 9 ... 2.0 L 3 O " AB-1 AB-2 1.3 2 1.5- 2 J O O i 159-1 V a n AB-3 2.2 O _. 8 L Li 0 im AB-4 0 .J 2.5 O 0