SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SFRTA…wavestreetcar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2014-0… · · 2017-07-19SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SFRTA)

SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SFRTA) WAVE MODERN STREETCAR – PHASE 1B

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

PREPARED FOR: HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

PREPARED BY: GEOSOL, INC.

JUNE 10, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................ 1

1.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 FIELD TEST LOCATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 3 3.3 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 3 3.4 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORINGS .......................................................................................... 3 3.9 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................................................... 4 3.10 IN-SITU SOIL RESISTIVITY TESTING ............................................................................................................ 4

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................................ 5

4.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 5 4.3 MOISTURE CONTENT ..................................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 ORGANIC CONTENT ....................................................................................................................................... 6 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION .............................................................................................................. 6

5.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 6

5.1 BROWARD COUNTY REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................................................................... 6 5.2 BROWARD COUNTY SOIL SURVEY ................................................................................................................ 7

6.0 SITE SUBSURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................. 8

6.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 6.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 9 6.3 ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL .............................................................................................. 9

7.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STREETCAR TRACK BED DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 10

7.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 7.2 SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................................................... 10 7.3 FILL MATERIAL ........................................................................................................................................... 11

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................... 11

8.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 11 8.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL .......................................................................................................................... 11

9.0 FHWA REPORT CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... 12

10.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) APPENDICIES

Appendix “A” Sheet 1 – Site Vicinity Map Sheet 2 – USDA Soils Survey Map

Table 1 – Summary of Field Test Locations Sheets 3 and 4 – Test Location Plans Sheets 5 through 7 – Soil Profiles Sheet 8 – Roadway Soils Survey Sheet

Appendix “B” Table 2 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results (Soil Samples) Table 3 – Summary of Environmental Classification Test Results Moisture Content Test Results Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve Test Results Grain-Size Analysis Results and Curves Organic Content Test Results Environmental Classification Test Results Appendix “C” Table 4 – Summary of In-Situ Soil Resistivity Testing Results In-Situ Soil Resistivity Test Schematics Typical Site Photograph Appendix “D” FHWA Checklist

Geotechnical Report for Preliminary Engineering 1 SFRTA Wave Modern Streetcar – Phase 1B Broward County, Florida GEOSOL Project No. 214126

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1 General This project will involve the design and construction of a 2.7-mile long modern electric streetcar, known as the Wave, which will operate in part via overhead electrical wires in some areas and by battery power in others, in the City of Fort Lauderdale, in Broward County, Florida. The streetcar system will be designed to move people in and around downtown and serve as a circular/distributor system, with connections to regional bus and rail systems in the City of Fort Lauderdale, in Broward County, Florida. Phase 1B of this project will include the design and construction of approximately 4,540-foot long track running along South Andrews Avenue between SE 7th Street and SE 17th Street in the city of Fort Lauderdale, in Broward County, Florida. As requested on December 5, 2013 and January 8, 2014, the geotechnical services for this phase of the project were limited to the performance of a geotechnical investigation, as well as an in-situ soil resistivity testing program for Phase 1B of the project along the previously described 4,540-foot track that is part of the proposed streetcar track alignment for the preliminary engineering phase of the project. GEOSOL previously prepared and submitted a Geotechnical Report for Preliminary Engineering and a Data Report for In-Situ Soil Resistivity Testing Results dated November 20, 2013 for the 1.4-mile long loop that is part of Phase 1A of this project. 1.2 Project Approach The purpose of this study was to evaluate the underground conditions (i.e. subsoil, rock and groundwater conditions) along the 4,540-foot long track that is part of Phase 1B of the proposed streetcar project. This report presents the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, in-situ soil resistivity testing and engineering evaluations for Phase 1B of the proposed streetcar track construction.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope consisted of providing the following services: 1. Reviewing of geotechnical data available from past projects near the site. 2. Discussing the field exploration program with HDR. 3. Obtaining underground utility clearance confirmation at the test locations.


4. Drilling twenty-four (24) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings along the project alignment to depths of 20 feet below existing grades along the alignment of the proposed streetcar tracks.

5. Measuring groundwater levels at the test boring locations. 6. Backfilling the boreholes made as a result of the SPT borings using cement grout mix to the

ground surface. 7. Inspecting soil/rock samples for visual classification and performing a limited number of

laboratory classification tests on selected representative samples.

8. Performing in-situ Soil Resistivity Testing along the project alignment at five (5) locations to depths of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 feet below existing grades at each test location.

9. Evaluating the results of the SPT boring and in-situ soil resistivity testing. 10. Developing site preparation requirements for the proposed streetcar tracks. 11. Preparing a geotechnical engineering report summarizing the field testing data, subsurface

and groundwater conditions, as well as our geotechnical evaluations and recommendations for the site preparation and foundation design.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION 3.1 General A field exploration program was performed which consisted of performing Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings and in-situ soil resistivity testing for Phase 1B of the proposed streetcar track construction. Specifically, a total of twenty-four (24) SPT borings (A-1 through A-24) were performed to depths of 20 feet below existing grades along the potential alignment of Phase 1B of the proposed streetcar track construction. The SPT borings were generally spaced at approximately 200-foot intervals along the proposed Phase 1B streetcar track alignment. Additionally, in-situ resistivity testing was performed at five (5) locations (R-1 through R-5) to depths of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 feet below existing grades at each test location. The in-situ resistivity testing locations were generally spaced at approximately 1000-foot intervals along the proposed Phase 1B streetcar track alignment. The Test Location Plans are presented on Sheets 3 and 4 in Appendix “A”. The Soil Profile sheets are shown on Sheets 5 through 7 in Appendix "A". These sheets present the boring location information, subsurface conditions and groundwater levels encountered at the time of drilling.


3.2 Field Test Locations The test borings performed for this study were marked in the field by representatives of GEOSOL utilizing standard taping procedures and existing landmarks. For the test locations, latitude and longitude coordinates were obtained with the use of a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) device. These coordinates were converted to northing and easting utilizing the software “Corpson” developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and should be considered approximate. The ground surface elevations for each test location have not been provided to us at this point. The borings were performed as close as possible to the proposed streetcar track alignment considering constraints such as utilities and equipment accessibility The approximate test boring locations are presented in Table 1 and in the Test Location Plans presented in Appendix “A”. 3.3 Site Conditions

The site conditions were observed by representatives of GEOSOL during performance of our field exploration. The proposed streetcar track alignment that are part of Phase 1B of the project will proceed along South Andrews Avenue between SE 7th Street and SE 17th Street in the city of Fort Lauderdale, in Broward County, Florida. The area mainly consists of commercial buildings. We have appended Site Vicinity and USDA maps, which identify the location of the study area. These maps are presented in Sheets 1 and 2, respectively, of Appendix "A".

3.4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings The SPT borings were performed utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig (Foremost-Mobile model B-53) equipped with a recently calibrated automatic hammer. The SPT boring procedure was conducted in general conformance with ASTM D-1586. After seating the sampler six (6) inches, the number of successive blows required to drive the sampler twelve (12) inches into the soil constitutes the test result commonly referred to as the "N"-value. The “N”-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered to be indicative of the relative density of cohensionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The N-value information for each SPT boring is presented in the Soil Profile sheets in Appendix “A”. The recovered split spoon samples were visually classified in the field with representative portions of the samples placed in jars and transported to our office for review by a geotechnical engineer and confirmation of the field classification. Upon completion of the SPT borings, the boreholes were backfilled with cement grout, the surface restored, and the site cleaned as required.


3.9 Water Level Measurements Water level depths were obtained during the performance of the test boring and exfiltration testing operations. They are noted on the Soil Profile sheets and Test Boring Records presented in Appendix “A”. In relatively pervious soils/rocks, such as sandy (granular) soils and porous limestone, the indicated depths are usually reliable groundwater levels. Seasonal variations, tidal conditions, temperature variations, land uses, and recent rainfall conditions may influence the depth of groundwater levels. 3.10 In-Situ Soil Resistivity Testing In-situ soil resistivity testing for the proposed streetcar track area was performed to assess the electrical resistivity of the near surface soil. As requested, the in-situ resistivity testing was performed at five (5) locations (R-1 through R-5) to depths of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 feet below existing grades at each test location. The in-situ resistivity testing locations were generally spaced at 1000-foot intervals along the proposed Phase 1B streetcar track alignment. The in-situ resistivity testing procedure was conducted using a Miller-400A meter per the 4-point Wenner method, and in general conformance with ASTM G57-06. The 4-point Wenner method uses four (4) electrodes attached to a meter that are driven into the earth the same distance and are evenly spaced in a straight line. The meter impresses a voltage between the outer two (2) electrodes, causing current to flow. The meter displays the earth’s average resistance to a depth equal to the electrode spacing based on the magnitude of the current flowing between the outer two (2) electrodes and the voltage drop between the inner two (2) electrodes. The earth’s average resistivity to a depth equal to the electrode spacing can be obtained by applying the following formula:

ρ = 2 π S R o Where

ρ is the earth’s average resistivity at depth equal to S (ohm.cm) S is the electrode spacing (cm) R is the resistance value measured using the 4-point Wenner method (ohm)

The results of the resistivity tests are summarized in Table 4 of Appendix “C”. Also, the schematics of the 4-point Wenner method arrangement and typical site photograph are presented in Appendix “C” of this report.


4.0 LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 General Representative samples collected from the test boring locations were visually reviewed in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the field classifications. The samples from the roadway borings were classified using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Soil Classification System in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D-3282, titled "Classification of Soils and Soils-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes". The soil classification was based on visual observations with the aid of laboratory testing results, which consist of grain-size analysis, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, organic content, and natural moisture content testing. The tests were performed on selected samples believed to be representative of the materials encountered. A summary of the laboratory test results are provided in Table 2 in Appendix “B” of this report. In addition, corrosion testing was performed on water samples obtained from the field testing in order to determine the FDOT Environmental Classification. A summary of the corrosion testing is presented in Table 3 of Appendix “B”. 4.2 Grain-Size Analysis The grain-size analyses were conducted in general accordance with the FDOT Test Designation FM1-T88 (ASTM Test Designation D-422, titled “Particle-Size Analysis of Soils”). The grain-size analysis test measures the percentage passing the No. 200 Sieve. In this manner, the grain-size distribution of a soil is measured. The percentage by weight passing the No. 200 sieve is the amount of silt and clay sized particles. A summary of these test results are presented on Table 2 in Appendix “B”. The grain-size analysis curves are presented in Appendix “B” of this report. 4.3 Moisture Content Laboratory moisture content test consists of the determination of the percentage of moisture contents in selected samples in general accordance with FDOT Test Designation FM1-T265 {ASTM Test Designation D-2216, titled “Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures”}. Briefly, the moisture content is determined by weighing a sample of the selected material and then drying it in a warm oven. Care is taken to use a gentle heat so as not to destroy any organics. The sample is removed from the oven and reweighed. The difference of the two weights is the amount of moisture removed from the sample. The weight of the moisture divided by the weight of the dry soil sample is the percentage by weight of moisture in the sample. The moisture content test results are presented in Table 2 of Appendix “B”.


4.4 Organic Content Organic content test consists of the determination of the percentage of organic content in selected samples in general accordance with FDOT Test Designation FM1-T267 (ASTM Test Designation D-2974, titled "Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils"). Briefly, the organic content is determined by weighing a sample of the selected material and then burning off the organic material in a hot oven. The sample is removed from the oven and re-weighed. The difference of the two weights is the amount of organic material removed from the sample. The weight of the organic material divided by the weight of the dry soil sample is the percentage by weight of organic material in the sample. The organic content test results are given in Table 2 of Appendix "B". 4.5 Environmental Classification GEOSOL performed environmental corrosion testing on water samples collected from the SPT borings performed for this project. Environmental corrosion tests include parameters such as pH, resistivity, sulfate content and chloride content. The environmental corrosion tests were conducted in general accordance with the FDOT Test Designations FM5-550, 5-551, 5-552, and 5-553. Based on the laboratory test results and the FDOT's "Structures Design Guidelines”, Section 1.3, the environment along the proposed streetcar track alignment has been classified as extremely aggressive for the steel substructures, moderately aggressive for the concrete substructure, and slightly aggressive for the superstructures. We have included the test results in Table 3 of Appendix “B”.

5.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 Broward County Regional Geology The project is located on the Southern flank of the Florida Plateau, a stable, carbonate platform on which thick deposits of Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary limestones, dolomites and evaporites have accumulated. In the project areas, the upper 200 feet of this platform is composed predominantly of limestone and quartz sand. These sediments were deposited during several glacial and interglacial stages during the Pleistocene Epoch. Three major geological formations are encountered along the project alignment in the upper 200 feet. These formations are in descending order: (1) the Fort Thompson Formation, (2) the Tamiami Formation and (3) the Hawthorn Formation.


A generalized site hydrogelogic section begins at land surface with a few feet of organic soils (muck) and lime mud of freshwater limestone. Some of these materials have been replaced with roadway embankment or levee fill. Below the organic soils or fill materials to a depth of 30 to 80 feet are interbedded materials of the upper part of the Fort Thompson Formation consisting of hard, dense, light brown and gray limestone, sand and shell with lime mud matrix; and some limestone with poorly to moderately developed solution-cavity zones. These upper beds generally retard vertical movement of water, but thin zones with cavities may be very highly permeable. Although the Fort Thompson Limestone Formation can be very porous and have a sponge-like, open interconnected network of vugs and small voids, large cavities do not exist and there is no potential for sinkhole activity. Below the upper Fort Thompson Formation to about 200 feet is the Tamiami Formation, which consists of gray shelly relatively soft limestone and sandstone with beds of sand-shell materials. The rock formations encountered in the west Broward County area are typically much softer than the "bedrock" formations encountered in other areas of the country. The strength of the limestone as well as its deformation characteristics depends upon the degree of cementation of the formation and its alteration by solutioning and weathering subsequent to deposition. One of the most important characteristics of the limestone encountered in the project area is the degree of erosion. Past surface solutioning of the limestone has resulted in formation called "pinnacle rock". In some cases nearly vertical cylindrical-shaped solution cavities are filled with surficial fine sands extending below the groundwater level. 5.2 Broward County Soil Survey The Soil Survey of Miami-Dade County Area, Florida, published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), was reviewed for general near-surface soil information within the general project vicinity. This information indicates that there are three (3) primary mapping units within the project vicinity, as follows: Dade - Urban Land Complex (11)

Immokalee, limestone substratum-Urban land complex (16)

Urban Land (40)

A reproduction of the USDA Soils Survey map for the project area is illustrated in Sheet 2 of Appendix "A" of this report.


6.0 SITE SUBSURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 6.1 General The subsurface conditions disclosed by the borings are generally consistent with the previously described regional geology. The stratification is based on visual examination of the recovered soil/rock samples, laboratory testing and interpretation of the field boring logs by a Geotechnical Engineer. The boring stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types of significantly different engineering properties; however, the actual transition may be gradual. In some cases, small variations in properties not considered pertinent to our engineering evaluation may have been abbreviated for clarity. The borings present the subsurface conditions at the particular boring location and slight variations do occur among the borings. The Soil Profile sheets presented in Appendix "A” provide the conditions at the particular test locations. Presented in Appendix "A" is the site vicinity map, USDA soil survey map, boring location information, Soil Profiles, and Soils Survey Sheet along with the soil legend and other pertinent information such as measured groundwater table levels. A detailed description of the subsurface materials encountered at the project site is presented below. Specifically, we have identified seven (7) strata in the subsoils (besides the existing topsoil and roadway pavement) along the limits of the project. They are identified below and described on the Roadway Soil Profiles in Appendix "A". Stratum Soil Description AASHTO Group 0 Asphalt Pavement N/A 00 Dark Brown Organic Silty Fine SAND with Grass (TOPSOIL) A-8 1 Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND with A-1-b

Some Limerock Fragments (FILL)

2 Light Brown to Dark Brown, Occasionally Organic Stained, A-3 Fine to Medium SAND (FILL) 3 Light Brown to Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with A-2-4

Little to Some Limerock Fragments (FILL)

4 Dark Brown Organic Slightly Silty to Silty Fine to Medium A-8 SAND with Little Roots, Wood, and Limestone Fragments (NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING PHASE 1B)

5 Light Brown to Brown Sandy LIMESTONE N/A


6 Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND A-2-4 with Some Limestone Fragments (NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING PHASE 1B)

7 Light Brown to Brown Slightly Silty A-3 Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limestone Fragments

Specific details concerning the subsurface materials and conditions encountered at each test location may be obtained from the Soil Profile sheets presented in Appendix "A". 6.2 Groundwater Conditions The groundwater table was measured at each boring location immediately following completion of drilling operations between May 9 and 19, 2014. The borings were performed during the end of dry season. The depths to the "static" groundwater table after a short stabilization period were measured to range from about 3.7 to 6.6 feet below the existing grades. The Soil Profile sheets presented in Appendix “A” show the groundwater table information at each boring location. In relatively pervious soil and rocks, such as granular soils and porous limestone, the indicated depths are usually reliable groundwater levels. Fluctuation in the observed groundwater levels should be expected due to rainfall variation, construction activity and other factors. We recommend that the Designer considers the possibility of such fluctuation. 6.3 Estimated Seasonal High Water Level The estimated seasonal high water table each year is the level in the August-September period at the end of the rainy season during a year of average (normal) rainfall. The water table elevations associated with a flood would be much higher than the seasonal high water table elevations. The normal high water levels would more approximate the seasonal high water table elevations. The seasonal high water table is affected by a number of factors. The drainage characteristic of the soils, the land surface elevation, relief points such as lakes, canals, swamp areas, etc., and distance to relief points are some of the more important factors influencing the seasonal high water table elevation. It is to be noted that the test borings for this project were performed during the end of the dry season. Therefore, based on our interpretation of the site conditions using the results of our test boring data, we estimate that the normal seasonal high water table is about 6 to 12 inches above the water levels shown at the boring locations.


7.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STREETCAR TRACK BED DESIGN

7.1 General Results of the soil survey indicate that the project alignment is generally suitable for the proposed streetcar track construction when viewed from a geotechnical engineering perspective. The following section provides our site preparation recommendations for the proposed streetcar track construction. 7.2 Site Preparation Site preparation for the proposed streetcar track construction will most likely include stripping of asphalt pavement; removal of unsuitable materials; filling operations and track construction. It should be noted that at this point stations have not been established along the alignment of the proposed streetcar track alignment. Therefore, limits of unsuitable soils will be referenced with respect to the nearest boring performed. For final design once the final track alignment and layout as well as stationing have been established, station limits will be provided for limits of unsuitable soils. The following are our discussions regarding the utilization and the site preparation requirements of the subsurface soils. The material from Stratum 0 is the existing asphalt pavement layer.

The material from Stratum 00 is topsoil (A-8) and considered to be unsuitable (muck). It shall

be removed during clearing and grubbing in accordance with Section 110 of the FDOT Standard Specifications.

The material from Strata Numbers 1, 2, and 7 (A-1-b and A-3 soils) are considered to be select

and should be utilized in accordance with FDOT Standard Index 505. The material from Strata Numbers 3 and 6 (A-2-4 soils) are considered to be select and should

be utilized in accordance with FDOT Standard Index 505. Certain types of A-2-4 material are likely to retain excess moisture and may be difficult to dry and compact. They should be used in the embankment above the water level existing at time of construction. They may be used in the subgrade portion of the track bed when approved by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Stratum Number 6 was not encountered during phase 1B of this project.

The material from Stratum Number 4 (A-8 soils) is considered to be organic (muck). Stratum

Number 4 was not encountered during phase 1B of this project.


The material from Stratum Number 5 is the natural limestone formation. These materials may be difficult to dewater, excavate and/or penetrate and may require special equipment to do so.

7.3 Fill Material The embankment fill should consist of select material, meeting the requirements of Standard Index 505 and shall be constructed in general accordance of Section 120.8 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 General Construction Recommendations Site preparation shall be in accordance with Sections 110 and 120 of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and FDOT Standard Indices 500 and 505. 8.2 Groundwater Control The groundwater can normally be controlled in shallow excavations with a sump pump. During subgrade soil preparation the soils below design grade could become disturbed by construction activities. If this becomes the case, The Contractor may be directed by The Owner's representative to remove the disturbed or pumping soils to a depth of 12 to 18 inches below design grades and backfill the area with select fill in accordance with FDOT Index 505 and the latest FDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridge Construction.


9.0 FHWA REPORT CHECKLIST As referenced in the FDOT Structures Design Guidelines, conformance to the FHWA Report “Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications” prepared by the Geotechnical and Materials Branch, FHWA, Washington, D.C., dated October 1985, is required when preparing geotechnical reports. The FHWA checklist for this report is enclosed in Appendix “D”.

10.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data. No other warranties are expressed or implied. The scope of the investigation was intended to evaluate subsurface conditions within the influence of the proposed streetcar track construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings performed by GEOSOL at the locations indicated. If any subsoil variations become evident during the course of this project, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered. The applicability of this report should also be reviewed in the event significant changes occur in the design, nature or location of the proposed project. The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

APPENDIX “A”

Sheet 1 – Site Vicinity Map Sheet 2 – USDA Soils Survey Map

Table 1 – Summary of Field Test Locations Sheets 3 and 4 – Test Location Plans

Sheets 5 through 7 – Soil Profiles Sheet 8 – Roadway Soils Survey Sheet

SFRTA THE WAVE MODERN STREETCAR - PHASE 1BBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDAGEOSOL PROJECT No. 214126

BORING / TESTNo.A-1 643271.5 937717.3 N/AA-2 643446.5 937615.7 N/AA-3 643645.5 937639.0 N/AA-4 643822.0 937542.6 N/AA-5 644021.3 937562.8 N/AA-6 644219.5 937458.2 N/AA-7 644398.3 937492.9 N/AA-8 644608.6 937384.1 N/AA-9 644769.6 937443.9 N/AA-10 644962.3 937378.4 N/AA-11 645186.8 937434.2 N/AA-12 645341.0 937368.1 N/AA-13 645537.8 937425.4 N/AA-14 645761.7 937354.7 N/AA-15 645910.5 937416.3 N/AA-16 646128.2 937338.9 N/AA-17 646288.1 937388.5 N/AA-18 646481.5 937331.2 N/AA-19 646679.4 937381.4 N/AA-20 646870.4 937319.2 N/AA-21 647081.3 937354.5 N/AA-22 647264.1 937307.0 N/AA-23 647458.6 937335.0 N/AA-24 647653.5 937297.0 N/A

NORTHING EASTING

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF TEST LOCATIONS

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

APPROXIMATE TEST LOCATION (FEET)

214126 Table 1 - Summary of Test Locations.xls 1 of 1

APPENDIX “B”

Table 3 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results (Soil Samples) Table 4 – Summary of Environmental Classification Test Results

Moisture Content Test Results Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve Test Results

Grain-Size Analysis Results and Curves Organic Content Test Results

Environmental Classification Test Results

NaturalBORING SAMPLE STRATUM AASHTO Organic MoistureNUMBER NUMBER NUMBER GROUP Content Content

1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200 (%) (%)A-11 1 00 A-8 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - 5 7A-14 1 00 A-8 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - 9 17A-8 1 00 A-8 0.0 - 0.2 - - - - - - - - - 9 13A-12 1 1 A-1-b 0.3 - 1.0 100 78 74 65 56 43 13 10 8 - 7A-18 2 2 A-3 2.0 - 4.0 100 100 100 100 100 89 26 4 1 - 3A-22 2 2 A-3 2.0 - 4.0 100 100 100 100 100 88 32 4 2 - 15A-3 3 2 A-3 4.0 - 6.0 100 100 100 100 100 88 18 6 4 - 28A-4 3 2 A-3 4.0 - 5.5 - - - - - - - - 2 3 30A-8 2 2 A-3 2.0 - 4.0 100 100 100 100 100 85 29 4 4 - 2A-1 1 3 A-2-4 0.3 - 1.5 100 100 90 83 80 67 26 14 12 - 8A-10 1 3 A-2-4 0.4 - 1.0 100 97 84 75 67 53 25 12 12 - 6A-13 2 3 A-2-4 2.0 - 4.0 100 97 87 82 78 66 32 24 22 - 15A-17 1 3 A-2-4 0.2 - 1.0 100 100 94 86 80 65 28 19 16 - 13A-20 1 3 A-2-4 0.3 - 1.0 - - - - - - - - 15 - 11A-23 1 3 A-2-4 0.4 - 1.0 100 100 89 86 82 69 34 17 15 - 11A-10 7 7 A-3 18.0 - 20.0 100 100 100 100 100 78 16 3 2 - 19A-15 7 7 A-3 18.0 - 20.0 100 100 100 100 99 73 7 1 1 - 31A-2 7 7 A-3 18.0 - 20.0 100 100 100 99 99 84 10 3 2 - 20A-21 7 7 A-3 18.0 - 20.0 100 100 97 96 94 73 9 3 2 - 23A-6 4 7 A-3 6.0 - 8.0 100 100 99 99 99 90 22 3 2 - 24A-6 7 7 A-3 18.0 - 20.0 100 88 80 67 61 52 21 9 9 - 15

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SFRTA WAVE MODERN STREETCAR - PHASE 1B

GEOSOL Project No.: 214126BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

(Percent Passing)Sieve Analysis Sample

Depth(FEET)

Steel ConcreteA-1 WATER 4.3 7.1 825 250 250 EA MA

A-4 WATER 4.4 7.2 876 250 250 EA MA

A-7 WATER 4.5 7.2 930 250 250 EA MA

A-10 WATER 5.3 7.6 985 250 250 EA MA

A-13 WATER 4.7 7.2 969 250 250 EA MA

A-16 WATER 5.5 7.2 977 250 250 EA MA

A-19 WATER 4.0 7.7 742 250 250 EA MA

A-23 WATER 5.3 7.7 732 250 250 EA MA

NOTES: (1) The following FDOT laboratory test methods were utilized.

EPA 9045 (pH) EPA-300 (Equivalent to FM5-552: Chlorides)

EPA 120.1 (Equivalent to FM5-551: Resistivity) EPA-300 (Equivalent to FM5-553: Sulfates)

(2) SA: SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

(3) MA: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

(4) EA: EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE

FDOT Criteria for Substructure Environmental Classification (FDOT Structures Design Guidelines 2014)

Depth (ft)

FDOT ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATIONSample

LocationResistivity (ohm-cm)

Chloride (ppm)Sample Type

GEOSOL Project No.: 214126

TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION TEST RESULTSSFRTA WAVE MODERN STREET CAR

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Sulfate (ppm)pH

PROJECT NAME: SFRTA WAVE MODERN STREETCAR - PHASE 1BLOCATION: BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDAPROJECT No.: 214126DATE: 5/12/2014

Boring No. A-8 A-8 A-10 A-10Sample No. 1 2 1 7Sample Depth (Feet) 0-0.2 2-4 0.4-1 18-20Tare No. 941 16 77 101Tare plus wet soil (grams) 94.0 326.0 481.0 402.5Tare plus dry soil (grams) 84.5 318.5 456.5 340.0Water Ww (grams) 9.5 7.5 24.5 62.5

Tare (grams) 9.0 8.5 9.0 9.0Dry soil Ws (grams) 75.5 310.0 447.5 331.0

Water Content w (%) 12.6 2.4 5.5 18.9

Boring No. A-11 A-12 A-21 A-22Sample No. 1 1 7 2Sample Depth (Feet) 0-0.2 0.25-1 18-20 2-4Tare No. N-3 18 N1 16Tare plus wet soil (grams) 182.5 187.0 271.0 317.5Tare plus dry soil (grams) 171.5 175.5 221.5 276.5Water Ww (grams) 11.0 11.5 49.5 41.0


Water Content w (%) 6.8 6.9 23.3 15.3

Boring No. A-23 A-18 A-20 A-17Sample No. 1 2 1 1Sample Depth (Feet) 0.4-1 2-4 0.3-1 0.2-1Tare No. 99 863 17 11Tare plus wet soil (grams) 162.0 311.0 191.5 224.0Tare plus dry soil (grams) 147.0 302.5 173.5 200.0Water Ww (grams) 15.0 8.5 18.0 24.0


Water Content w (%) 10.9 2.9 10.9 12.6

Boring No. A-13 A-14 A-15 A-4Sample No. 2 1 7 3Sample Depth (Feet) 2-4 0-0.2 18-20 4-5.5Tare No. 4 99 N1 16Tare plus wet soil (grams) 450.5 101.0 281.5 354.5Tare plus dry soil (grams) 394.0 88.0 217.0 275.0Water Ww (grams) 56.5 13.0 64.5 79.5


Water Content w (%) 14.7 16.5 31.0 29.8

Boring No. A-6 A-6 A-1 A-2Sample No. 4 7 1 7Sample Depth (Feet) 6-8 18-20 0.3-1.5 18-20Tare No. 17 103 103 19Tare plus wet soil (grams) 410.5 251.5 125.0 396.0Tare plus dry soil (grams) 332.0 220.5 116.0 331.5Water Ww (grams) 78.5 31.0 9.0 64.5


Water Content w (%) 24.3 14.7 8.4 20.0

Boring No. A-3Sample No. 3Sample Depth (Feet) 4-6Tare No. 4Tare plus wet soil (grams) 379.5Tare plus dry soil (grams) 297.5Water Ww (grams) 82.0

Tare (grams) 9.0Dry soil Ws (grams) 288.5

Water Content w (%) 28.4

MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS (ASTM D-2216)

PROJECT NAME: SFRTA WAVE MODERN STREETCAR - PHASE 1BLOCATION: BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDAPROJECT No.: 214126DATE: 5/12/2014

Boring No. A-10 A-10 A-12 A-23 A-20Sample No. 1 7 1 1 1Sample Depth (Feet) 0.4-1 18-20 0.25-1 0.4-1 0.3-1Original Dry Weight of Soil (grams) 447.5 331.0 166.5 138.0 164.5Weight of Soil After Washing (grams) 392.5 323.0 152.5 117.5 140.0Weight of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (grams) 55.0 8.0 14.0 20.5 24.5Percent of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (%) 12.3 2.4 8.4 14.9 14.9

Boring No. A-17 A-13 A-4 A-6 A-6Sample No. 1 2 3 4 7Sample Depth (Feet) 0.2-1 2-4 4-5.5 6-8 18-20Original Dry Weight of Soil (grams) 191.0 385.0 173.5 323.0 211.5Weight of Soil After Washing (grams) 160.5 301.0 169.5 318.0 193.5Weight of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (grams) 30.5 84.0 4.0 5.0 18.0Percent of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (%) 16.0 21.8 2.3 1.5 8.5

Boring No. A-1 A-3Sample No. 1 3Sample Depth (Feet) 0.3-1.5 4-6Original Dry Weight of Soil (grams) 107.0 288.5Weight of Soil After Washing (grams) 94.0 276.0Weight of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (grams) 13.0 12.5Percent of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (%) 12.1 4.3

Note: The percent passing the No. 200 sieve results presented above were determined using the wash method.

MATERIAL PASSING THE # 200 SIEVE TEST RESULTS (AASHTO T-11)

GRAIN SIZE DATA SHEETDATE: 5/13/2014

PROJECT NAME: SFRTA WAVE MODERN STREETCAR - PHASE 1BGEOSOL PROJECT No. 214126GENERAL LOCATION: BROWARD, FLORIDA

Boring No. A-8Sample No. 2Depth (feet) 2-4

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Tare # Dry Wt. - Tare Wt.

16 310.0

Sieve Size Sieve Sizes Cumulative Wt. Retained % RETAINED % PASSING

% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE

WEIGHT RETAINED (Grams)

75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.02.36 2 mm #10 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.00.6 425um #40 47.5 15.3 84.7 84.7 47.50.3 250um #60 220.0 71.0 29.0 29.0 172.5

0.15 150um #100 298.0 96.1 3.9 3.9 78.00.075 75um #200 298.5 96.3 3.7 3.7 0.5PAN - 310.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 11.5

NOTES: Percent passing the #200 sieve was determined by the wash method.

ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10 Cu = D60 / D10Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40 Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60)

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200 1000 um = 1 mm

tested by: J. Gonzalez computed by: S. Zhang checked by: O. Riccobono

Light Brown Fine to Medium SAND (FILL; A-3)



ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10 Cu = D60 / D10

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40 Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60)

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # A-8 SAMPLE # 2 Depth (feet) 2-4

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Natural Moisture Content: 2.4%


3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

GRAIN SIZE in millimeters

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G





Boring No. A-10Sample No. 1Depth (feet) 0.4-1

SOIL DESCRIPTION:


77 447.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 13.0 2.9 97.1 97.1 13.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 72.0 16.1 83.9 83.9 59.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 113.0 25.3 74.7 74.7 41.02.36 2 mm #10 147.0 32.8 67.2 67.2 34.00.6 425um #40 211.0 47.2 52.8 52.8 64.00.3 250um #60 337.0 75.3 24.7 24.7 126.0

0.15 150um #100 392.0 87.6 12.4 12.4 55.00.075 75um #200 392.5 87.7 12.3 12.3 0.5PAN - 447.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 55.0





Light Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-2-4)






BORING # A-10 SAMPLE # 1 Depth (feet) 0.4-1

SOIL DESCRIPTION:


Light Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-2-4)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


101 331.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.02.36 2 mm #10 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.00.6 425um #40 73.0 22.1 77.9 77.9 73.00.3 250um #60 279.0 84.3 15.7 15.7 206.0

0.15 150um #100 319.5 96.5 3.5 3.5 40.50.075 75um #200 323.0 97.6 2.4 2.4 3.5PAN - 331.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 8.0





Light Brown Fine to Medium SAND (A-3)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


18 166.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 37.5 22.5 77.5 77.5 37.59.5 9.5mm 3/8" 43.0 25.8 74.2 74.2 5.5

4.75 4.75mm #4 58.0 34.8 65.2 65.2 15.02.36 2 mm #10 73.5 44.1 55.9 55.9 15.50.6 425um #40 94.5 56.8 43.2 43.2 21.00.3 250um #60 144.5 86.8 13.2 13.2 50.0

0.15 150um #100 150.5 90.4 9.6 9.6 6.00.075 75um #200 152.5 91.6 8.4 8.4 2.0PAN - 166.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 14.0





Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-1-b)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:


Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-1-b)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


N1 212.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 6.0 2.8 97.2 97.2 6.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 8.5 4.0 96.0 96.0 2.52.36 2 mm #10 13.5 6.4 93.6 93.6 5.00.6 425um #40 56.5 26.6 73.4 73.4 43.00.3 250um #60 193.0 90.8 9.2 9.2 136.5

0.15 150um #100 207.0 97.4 2.6 2.6 14.00.075 75um #200 209.0 98.4 1.6 1.6 2.0PAN - 212.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.5












SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


16 267.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.02.36 2 mm #10 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.00.6 425um #40 32.0 12.0 88.0 88.0 32.00.3 250um #60 183.0 68.4 31.6 31.6 151.0

0.15 150um #100 257.0 96.1 3.9 3.9 74.00.075 75um #200 263.0 98.3 1.7 1.7 6.0PAN - 267.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 4.5












SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


99 138.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 15.0 10.9 89.1 89.1 15.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 19.5 14.1 85.9 85.9 4.52.36 2 mm #10 25.0 18.1 81.9 81.9 5.50.6 425um #40 43.0 31.2 68.8 68.8 18.00.3 250um #60 91.5 66.3 33.7 33.7 48.5

0.15 150um #100 114.0 82.6 17.4 17.4 22.50.075 75um #200 117.5 85.1 14.9 14.9 3.5PAN - 138.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 20.5





Light Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Little Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-2-4)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


863 293.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.02.36 2 mm #10 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.00.6 425um #40 32.0 10.9 89.1 89.1 32.00.3 250um #60 217.5 74.1 25.9 25.9 185.5

0.15 150um #100 282.5 96.3 3.7 3.7 65.00.075 75um #200 290.0 98.8 1.2 1.2 7.5PAN - 293.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.5





Brown Fine to Medium SAND (FILL; A-3)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


11 191.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 12.5 6.5 93.5 93.5 12.5

4.75 4.75mm #4 27.5 14.4 85.6 85.6 15.02.36 2 mm #10 37.5 19.6 80.4 80.4 10.00.6 425um #40 66.5 34.8 65.2 65.2 29.00.3 250um #60 137.0 71.7 28.3 28.3 70.5

0.15 150um #100 155.5 81.4 18.6 18.6 18.50.075 75um #200 160.5 84.0 16.0 16.0 5.0PAN - 191.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 30.5












SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


4 385.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 10.0 2.6 97.4 97.4 10.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 49.0 12.7 87.3 87.3 39.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 70.0 18.2 81.8 81.8 21.02.36 2 mm #10 84.0 21.8 78.2 78.2 14.00.6 425um #40 132.5 34.4 65.6 65.6 48.50.3 250um #60 261.5 67.9 32.1 32.1 129.0

0.15 150um #100 293.0 76.1 23.9 23.9 31.50.075 75um #200 301.0 78.2 21.8 21.8 8.0PAN - 385.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 84.0












SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


N1 208.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 0.5 0.2 99.8 99.8 0.52.36 2 mm #10 1.5 0.7 99.3 99.3 1.00.6 425um #40 56.5 27.2 72.8 72.8 55.00.3 250um #60 194.5 93.5 6.5 6.5 138.0

0.15 150um #100 205.5 98.8 1.2 1.2 11.00.075 75um #200 206.0 99.0 1.0 1.0 0.5PAN - 208.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0





Brown Fine to Medium SAND (A-3)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


17 323.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 2.0 0.6 99.4 99.4 2.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 4.0 1.2 98.8 98.8 2.02.36 2 mm #10 5.0 1.5 98.5 98.5 1.00.6 425um #40 34.0 10.5 89.5 89.5 29.00.3 250um #60 250.5 77.6 22.4 22.4 216.5

0.15 150um #100 313.5 97.1 2.9 2.9 63.00.075 75um #200 318.0 98.5 1.5 1.5 4.5PAN - 323.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 5.0





Brown Fine SAND (A-3)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:


Brown Fine SAND (A-3)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


103 211.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 26.0 12.3 87.7 87.7 26.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 41.5 19.6 80.4 80.4 15.5

4.75 4.75mm #4 69.0 32.6 67.4 67.4 27.52.36 2 mm #10 82.5 39.0 61.0 61.0 13.50.6 425um #40 102.5 48.5 51.5 51.5 20.00.3 250um #60 167.5 79.2 20.8 20.8 65.0

0.15 150um #100 193.0 91.3 8.7 8.7 25.50.075 75um #200 193.5 91.5 8.5 8.5 0.5PAN - 211.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 18.0





Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND with Some Limestone Fragments (A-3)







SOIL DESCRIPTION:


Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND with Some Limestone Fragments (A-3)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G





Boring No. A-1Sample No. 1Depth (feet) 0.3-1.5

SOIL DESCRIPTION:


103 107.0


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 10.5 9.8 90.2 90.2 10.5

4.75 4.75mm #4 18.0 16.8 83.2 83.2 7.52.36 2 mm #10 21.0 19.6 80.4 80.4 3.00.6 425um #40 35.5 33.2 66.8 66.8 14.50.3 250um #60 79.0 73.8 26.2 26.2 43.5

0.15 150um #100 92.0 86.0 14.0 14.0 13.00.075 75um #200 94.0 87.9 12.1 12.1 2.0PAN - 107.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 13.0





Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Little Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-2-4)






BORING # A-1 SAMPLE # 1 Depth (feet) 0.3-1.5

SOIL DESCRIPTION:


Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Little Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-2-4)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


19 322.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 2.0 0.6 99.4 99.4 2.02.36 2 mm #10 4.0 1.2 98.8 98.8 2.00.6 425um #40 51.5 16.0 84.0 84.0 47.50.3 250um #60 289.0 89.6 10.4 10.4 237.5

0.15 150um #100 313.5 97.2 2.8 2.8 24.50.075 75um #200 316.5 98.1 1.9 1.9 3.0PAN - 322.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 6.0












SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G






SOIL DESCRIPTION:


4 288.5


% PASSING TOTAL

SAMPLE


75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.050 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.025 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.019 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.09.5 9.5mm 3/8" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.02.36 2 mm #10 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.00.6 425um #40 35.0 12.1 87.9 87.9 35.00.3 250um #60 236.5 82.0 18.0 18.0 201.5

0.15 150um #100 271.5 94.1 5.9 5.9 35.00.075 75um #200 276.0 95.7 4.3 4.3 4.5PAN - 288.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 12.5












SOIL DESCRIPTION:



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G



PROJECT NAME: SFRTA WAVE MODERN STREETCAR -PHASE 1BLOCATION: BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDAPROJECT No.: 214126DATE: 5/12/2014

Boring No. A-8 A-11 A-14 A-4Sample No. 1 1 1 3Sample Depth (Feet) 0-0.2 0-0.2 0-0.2 4-5.5Crucible No. BN BO BN BOWeight of Crucible and Oven-Dried Sample (grams) 116.5 136.0 128.0 150.5Weight of Crucible and Sample after Ignition (grams) 112.0 132.0 122.0 148.0Weight of Crucible (grams) 64.0 57.0 64.0 57.5Weight of Oven-Dried Soil (grams) 52.5 79.0 64.0 93.0Weight Loss due to Ignition (grams) 4.5 4.0 6.0 2.5Percent Organics (%) 8.6 5.1 9.4 2.7

ORGANIC CONTENT TEST RESULTS (ASTM D-2974)

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Pace Project No.:Project:

35138639Wave Street Car

Sample: A-1 Lab ID: 35138639001 Collected: 05/19/14 17:00 Received: 05/20/14 17:20 Matrix: Water

Parameters Results Units DF Prepared Analyzed CAS No. QualMDLPQL

4500H+ pH, Electrometric Analytical Method: SM 4500-H+B

Temperature, Water (C) 25.0 deg C 05/21/14 11:55 Q0.010 0.010 1pH at 25 Degrees C 7.1 Std. Units 05/21/14 11:55 Q0.10 0.10 1

Resistivity Analytical Method: EPA 120.1 Resistivity

Resistivity 825 ohms-cm 05/21/14 13:001

300.0 IC Anions 28 Days Analytical Method: EPA 300.0

Chloride 250U mg/L 05/21/14 21:13 16887-00-6 D3500 250 100Sulfate 250U mg/L 05/21/14 21:13 14808-79-8 D3500 250 100

REPORT OF LABORATORY ANALYSISThis report shall not be reproduced, except in full,

without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..Date: 05/22/2014 01:33 PM

Pace Analytical Services, Inc.3610 Park Central Blvd N

Pompano Beach, FL 33064954-582-4300

Page 5 of 14

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS















Page 6 of 14

A-4

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS















Page 7 of 14

A-7

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS


35138294Wave Street Can Supplemental








Chloride 250U mg/L 05/24/14 15:41 16887-00-6500 250 100Sulfate 250U mg/L 05/24/14 15:41 14808-79-8500 250 100


without the written consent of Pace Analytical Services, Inc..Date: 05/29/2014 10:07 AM



Page 6 of 14

A-10

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS















Page 5 of 14

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS















Page 7 of 14

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS


35137926SFRTA Wave Modera Street Car













Page 5 of 13

A-19

#=AR#

ANALYTICAL RESULTS


35137926SFRTA Wave Modera Street Car













Page 6 of 13

A-23

APPENDIX “C”

Table 4 – Summary of In-Situ Soil Resistivity Testing Results In-Situ Soil Resistivity Test Schematics

Typical Site Photograph

SFRTA THE WAVE MODERN STREETCAR - PHASE 1BBROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDAGEOSOL PROJECT No. 214126

No. (ohm) (ft) (cm) (ohm.cm)217.0 2.5 76.0 103,595.891.0 5.0 151.9 86,886.835.0 7.5 227.9 50,127.016.0 10.0 303.8 30,553.6160.0 2.5 76.0 76,384.089.0 5.0 151.9 84,977.255.0 7.5 227.9 78,771.024.0 10.0 303.8 45,830.4145.0 2.5 76.0 69,223.097.0 5.0 151.9 92,615.635.0 7.5 227.9 50,127.017.0 10.0 303.8 32,463.238.0 2.5 76.0 18,141.226.0 5.0 151.9 24,824.816.0 7.5 227.9 22,915.29.0 10.0 303.8 17,186.4

225.0 2.5 76.0 107,415.044.0 5.0 151.9 42,011.210.0 7.5 227.9 14,322.06.0 10.0 303.8 11,457.6

Notes: The resistivity values were calculated per the 4-point Wenner method, and in general conformance with ASTM G57-06, as:· ρ = 2 π S R, where: ρ is the earth’s average resistivity at depth equal to S (ohm.cm) S is the electrode spacing (cm) R is the resistance value measured using the 4-point Wenner method (ohm)

TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF IN-SITU SOIL RESISTIVITY TESTING RESULTS

RESISTANCE (R) RESISTIVITY (ρ)SPACING (S) SPACING (S)

R-1

TEST

R-2

R-3

R-5

R-4

214126 Table 4 - Resistivity Test Results.xls 1 of 1

APPENDIX “D”

FHWA Checklist

1

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS The following checklists cover the major information and recommendations which should be addressed in project geotechnical reports. Section A covers site investigation information which will be common to all geotechnical reports for any type of geotechnical feature. Sections B through I cover the basic information and recommendations which should be presented in geotechnical reports for specific geotechnical features: centerline cuts and embankments, embankments over soft ground, landslides, retaining walls, structure foundations and material sites. Subject Page SECTION A, Site Investigation Information .................................. 2 SECTION B, Centerline Cuts and Embankments ................................. 4 SECTION C, Embankments Over Soft Ground .................................... 6 SECTION D, Landslide Corrections ........................................... 8 SECTION E, Retaining Walls ................................................ 10 SECTION F, Structure Foundations - Spread Footings ........................ 11 SECTION G, Structure Foundations - Piles .................................. 12 SECTION H, Structure Foundations - Drilled Shafts ......................... 15 SECTION I, Materials Sites ................................................ 16 In most sections and subsections, the user has been provided supplemental page references to the Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual. These page numbers appear in parentheses ( ) immediately adjacent to the section or subsection topic. Generalist engineers are particularly encouraged to read these references. Additional reference information on these topics is available in the Geotechnical Notebook, a copy of which is kept in all Division Offices by either the Bridge Engineer or the engineer with the soils responsibility. Certain checklist items are of vital importance to have been included in the geotechnical report. These checklist items have been marked with an asterisk (*). A negative response to any of these asterisked items is cause to contact the geotechnical engineer for clarification of this omission.

2

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (SITE INVESTIGATION) A. Site Investigation Information Since the most important step in the geotechnical design process is the

conduct of an adequate site investigation, presentation of the subsurface information in the geotechnical report and on the plans deserves careful attention.

Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction) Unknown (Pages 322-325) Yes No or N/A 1. Is the general location of the investigation described and/or vicinity map included? X 2. Is scope and purpose of the investigation summarized? X 3. Is concise description given of geologic setting and topography of area? X 4. Are the field explorations and laboratory tests on which the report is based listed? X 5. Is general description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions given? X *6. Is the following information included with the geotechnical report (typically included in report appendices): a. Test hole logs? (Pages 25-33) X b. Field test data? X c. Laboratory test data? (Pages 74-75) X d. Photographs (if pertinent)? X Plan and Subsurface Profile (Pages 24, 47-49, 335) *7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided? x * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

3

Unknown A. Site Investigation Information (Cont.) Yes No or N/A 8. Are the field explorations located on the plan view? X *9. Does the conducted site investigation meet minimum criteria outlined in Table 2? X 10. Are the explorations plotted and correctly numbered on the profile at their true elevation and location? X 11. Does the subsurface profile contain a word description and/or graphic depiction of soil and rock types? X 12. Are groundwater levels and data measured shown on the subsurface profile? X Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log (Pages 16-17, 25-29) 13. Are sample types and depths noted? X *14. Are SPT blow counts, percent core recovery, and RQD values shown? x 15. If cone penetration tests were made, are plots of cone resistance and friction ratio shown with depth? X Laboratory Test Data (Pages 60, 74-75) *16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation, Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil identifications? X 17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength (Page 62), consolidation (Page 68), etc., included and/or summarized? X * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

4

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (CENTERLINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS) B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Pages 6-9) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the

following information provided in the project geotechnical report? Unknown Are station to station descriptions included for: Yes No or N/A 1. Existing surface and subsurface drainage? X 2. Evidence of springs and excessively wet areas? X 3. Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment? X Are station to station recommendations included for the following: General Soil Cut or Fill 4. Specific surface/subsurface drainage recommendations. X 5. Excavation limits of unsuitable materials? x *6. Erosion protection measures for backslopes, side slopes, and ditches, including riprap recommendations or special slope treatments? X Soil Cuts (Pages 101-102) *7. Recommended cut slope design? X 8. Are clay cut slopes designed for minimum F.S. = 1.50? X 9. Special usage of excavated soils? X 10. Estimated shrink-swell factors for excavated materials? X 11. If answer to 3 is yes, are recommendations X * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

5

Unknown B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Cont.) Yes No or N/A Fills (Pages 77-79) 11. Recommended fill slope design? X 12. Will fill slope design provide minimum F.S. = 1.25? X Rock Slopes *13. Are recommended slope designs and blasting specifications provided? X *14. Is the need for special rock slope stabilization measures, e.g., rockfall catch ditch, wire mesh slope protection, shotcrete, rock bolts, addressed? X 15. Has the use of "template" designs been avoided (such as designing all rock slopes on 1/4 to 1 rather than designing based on orientation of major rock jointing)? X *16. Have effects of blast induced vibrations on adjacent structures been evaluated? X * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

6

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT "GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFT GROUND)

C. Embankments over Soft Ground Where embankments must be built over soft ground (such as soft

clays, organic silts, or peat), stability and settlement of the fill should be carefully evaluated. In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Unknown Embankment Stability (Pages 77-79, 95-97) Yes No or N/A *1. Has the stability of the embankment been evaluated for minimum safety factors of 1.25 for side slope stability and 1.30 for end slope stability of bridge approach embankments? *2. Has the shear strength of the foundation soil been determined from lab testing and/or field vane shear or static cone penetrometer tests? *3. If the proposed embankment does not provide minimum factors of safety given above, are recommendations given for feasible treatment alternates which will increase factor of safety to minimum acceptable (such as change alignment, lower grade, use stabilizing counterberms, excavate and replace weak subsoil, fill stage construction, lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)? *4. Are cost comparisons of treatment alternates given and a specific alternate recommended? Settlement of Subsoil (Pages 146-160) 5. Have consolidation properties of fine grained soils been determined from laboratory consolidation tests? *6. Have settlement amount and settlement time been estimated? 7. For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made to get the settlement out before the bridge abutment is constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick drains)? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

7

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Unknown C. Embankments Over Soft Ground (Cont.) Yes No or N/A 8. If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill stability and settlement, are detailed recommendations provided on the number, type, and specific locations of the proposed instruments? 9. Construction Considerations (Pages 183, 331-334) a. If excavation and replacement of unsuitable shallow surface deposits (peat, muck, topsoil) is recommended. Are vertical and lateral limits of recommended excavation provided? b. Where a surcharge treatment is recommended, are plan and cross-section of surcharge treatment provided in geotechnical report for benefit of the roadway designer? c. Are instructions or specifications providing concerning instrumentation, fill placement rates and estimated delay times for the contractor? d. Are recommendations provided for disposal of surcharge material after the settlement period is complete? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

8

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (LANDSLIDE CORRECTIONS)

D. Landslide Corrections (Pages 77-80, 103-105) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the

following information provided in the landslide study geotechnical report? (Refer to Table 4 for guidance on the necessary technical support data for correction of slope instabilities)

Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Is a site plan and scaled cross-section provided showing ground surface conditions both before and after failure? *2. Is the past history of the slide area summarized - including movement history, summary of maintenance work and costs, and previous corrective measures taken ( if any)? *3. Is a summary given of results of site investigation, field and lab testing, and stability analysis, including cause(s) of the slide? Plan 4. Are detailed slide features - including locations of ground surface cracks, head scarp, and toe bulge - shown on the site plan? Cross Section *5. Are the cross sections used for stability analysis included with the soil profile, water table, soil unit weights, soil shear strengths, and failure plane shown as it exists? 6. Is slide failure plane location determined from slope indicators? *7. For an active slide, was soil strength along the slide failure plane backfigured using a safety factor equal to 1.0 at the time of failure? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

9

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Unknown D. Landslide Corrections (Cont.) Yes No or N/A Text *8. Is the following information presented for each proposed correction alternate: (typical correction methods include buttress, shear key, rebuild slope, surface drainage, subsurface drainage-interceptor, drain trenches or horizontal drains and retaining structures)? a. Cross-section of proposed alternate? b. Estimated safety factor? c. Estimated cost? d. Advantages and disadvantages? 9. Is a recommended correction alternate(s) given which provide a minimum F.S. = 1.25? 10. If horizontal drains are proposed as part of slide correction, has subsurface investigation located definite water bearing strata that can be tapped with horizontal drains? 11. If a toe counterberm is proposed to stabilize an active slide, has field investigation confirmed that the toe of the existing slide does not extend beyond the toe of the proposed counterberm? 12. Construction Considerations a. Where proposed correction will require excavation into the toe of an active slide (such as for buttress or shear key), has the "during construction backslope F.S." with open excavation been determined? b. If open excavation F.S. is near 1.0, has excavation stage construction been proposed? c. Has seasonal fluctuation of groundwater table been considered? d. Are special construction features, techniques and materials described and specified? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

10

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT "GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (RETAINING WALLS) E. Retaining Walls (See Section 5 of "Geotechnical Engineering Notebook") In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the

following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Does the geotechnical report include recommended soil strength parameters and groundwater elevation for use in computing wall design lateral earth pressures and factor of safety for overturning, sliding, and external slope stability? 2. Is it proposed to bid alternate wall designs? *3. Are acceptable reasons given for the choice and/or exclusion of certain wall types (gravity, reinforced soil, tieback, cantilever, etc.)? *4. Is an analysis of the wall stability included with minimum acceptable factors of safety against overturning (F.S. = 2.0), sliding (F.S. = 1.5), and external slope stability (F.S. = 1.5)? 5. If wall will be placed on compressible foundation soils, is estimated total settlement, differential settlement, and time rate of settlement given? 6. Will wall types selected for compressible foundation soils allow differential movement without distress? 7. Are wall drainage details including materials and compaction provided? 8. Construction Considerations: a. Are excavation requirements covered - safe slopes for open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring? b. Fluctuation of groundwater table? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

11

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT "GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (SPREAD FOOTINGS) F. Structure Foundations - Spread Footings (Pages 191-205) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the

following information provided in the project foundation report? Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Are spread footings recommended for foundation support? If not, are reasons for not using them discussed. *2. Is recommended bottom of footing elevation and reason for recommendation (e.g., based on frost depth, estimated scour depth, or depth to competent bearing material) given? *3. Is recommended allowable soil or rock bearing pressure given? *4. Is estimated footing settlement and time given? *5. Where spread footings are recommended to support abutments placed in the bridge end fills, are special gradation and compaction requirements provided for select end fill and backwall drainage material? (Pages 137-141) 6. Construction Considerations: a. Have the materials been adequately described on which the footing is to be placed so the project inspector can verify that material is as expected? b. Have excavation requirements been included for safe slopes in open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring, etc.? c. Has fluctuations of the groundwater table been addressed? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

12

FOR THE PD&E PHASE THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT "GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (PILE FOUNDATIONS) G. Structure Foundations - Piles (Pages 224-311) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, if pile

support is recommended or given as an alternate, conclusions/recommendations should be provided in the project geotechnical report for the following:

Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Is the recommended pile type given (displacement, nondisplacement, pipe pile, concrete pile, H-pile, etc.) with valid reasons given for choice and/or exclusion? (Pages 224-226) 2. Do you consider the recommended pile type(s) to be the most suitable and economical? *3. Are estimated pile lengths and estimated tip elevations given for the recommended allowable pile design loads? 4. Do you consider the recommended design loads to be reasonable? 5. Has pile group settlement been estimated (only of practical significance for friction pile groups ending in cohesive soil)? (Pages 245-247) 6. If a specified or minimum pile tip elevation is recommended, is a clear reason given for the required tip elevation, such as underlying soft layers, scour, downdrag, piles uneconomically long, etc.? *7. Has design analysis (wave equation analysis) verified that the recommended pile section can be driven to the estimated or specified tip elevation without damage (especially applicable where dense gravel-cobble-boulder layers or other obstructions have to be penetrated? 8. Where scour piles are required, have pile design and driving criteria been established based on mobilizing the full pile design capacity below the scour zone? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

13

FOR THE PD&E PHASE THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Unknown G. Pile Foundations (Cont.) Yes No or N/A 9. Where lateral load capacity of large diameter piles is an important design consideration, are p-y curves (load vs. deflection) or soil parameters given in the geotechnical report to allow the structural engineer to evaluate lateral load capacity of all piles? *10. For pile supported bridge abutments over soft ground: a. Has abutment pile downdrag load been estimated and solutions such as bitumen coating considered in design? Not generally required if surcharging of the fill is being performed. (Pages 248-251) b. Is bridge approach slab recommended to moderate differential settlement between bridge ends and fill? c. If the majority of subsoil settlement will not be removed prior to abutment construction (by surcharging), has estimate been made of the amount of abutment rotation that can occur due to lateral squeeze of soft subsoil? (Pages 114-115) d. Does the geotechnical report specifically alert the structural designer to the estimated horizontal abutment movement? 11. If bridge project is large, has pile load test program been recommended? (Pages 229- 302) 12. For a major structure in high seismic risk area, has assessment been made of liquefaction potential of foundation soil during design earthquake (note: only loose saturated sands and silts are "susceptible" to liquefaction)? *A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for clarification and/or to discuss the project.

14

FOR THE PD&E PHASE THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Unknown G.Pile Foundations (Cont.) Yes No or N/A 13. Construction Considerations: (Pages 279-311) Have the following important construction considerations been adequately addressed? a. Pile driving details such as: boulders, or obstructions which may be encountered during driving - need for preaugering, jetting, spudding, need for pile tip reinforcement, driving shoes, etc.? b. Excavation requirements - safe slope for open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring? Fluctuation of groundwater table? c. Have effects of pile driving operation on adjacent structures been evaluated such as protection against damage caused by footing excavations or pile driving vibrations? d. Is preconstruction condition survey to be made of adjacent structures to prevent unwarranted damage claims? e. On large pile driving projects have other methods of pile driving control been considered such as dynamic testing or wave equation analysis?

15

FOR THE PD&E PHASE THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT "GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (DRILLED SHAFTS) H. Structure Foundations - Drilled Shafts (Pages 252-260) In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, if

drilled shaft support is recommended or given as an alternate, are conclusions/recommendations provided in the project foundation report for the following:

Unknown Yes No or N/A *1. Are recommended shaft diameter(s) and length(s) for allowable design loads based on an analysis using soil parameters for side friction and end bearing? *2. Settlement estimated for recommended design load? *3. Where lateral load capacity of shaft is an important design consideration, are P-Y (load vs. deflection) curves or soils data provided in geotechnical report which will allow structural engineer to evaluate lateral load capacity of shaft? 4. Is static load test (to plunging failure) recommended? 5. Construction Considerations: a. Have construction methods been evaluated, i.e., can less expensive dry method or slurry method be used or will casing be required? b. If casing will be required, can casing be pulled as shaft is concreted (this can result in significant cost savings or very large diameter shafts)? c. If artesian water was encountered in explorations, have design provisions been included to handle it (such as by requiring casing and tremie seal)? d. Will boulders be encountered? (Note: If boulders will be encountered, then the use of shafts should be seriously questioned due to construction installation difficulties and resultant higher cost the boulders can cause.) * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

16

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT "GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (MATERIAL SITES) I. Material Sites In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the

following information provided in the project Material Site Report?:

Unknown Yes No or N/A 1. Material site location, including description of existing or proposed access routes and bridge load limits (if any)? *2. Have soil samples representative of all materials encountered during the pit investigation been submitted and tested? *3. Are laboratory quality test results included in the report? 4. For aggregate sources, do the laboratory quality test results (such as L.A. abrasion, sodium sulfate, degradation, absorption, reactive aggregate, etc.) indicate if specification materials can be obtained from the deposit using normal processing methods? 5. If the lab quality test results indicate that specification material cannot be obtained from the pit materials as they exist naturally - has the source been rejected or are detailed recommendations provided for processing or controlling production so as to ensure a satisfactory product. *6. For soil borrow sources, have possible difficulties been noted - such as above optimum moisture content clay-silt soils, waste due to high PI, boulders, etc? *7. Where high moisture content clay-silt soils must be used, are recommendations provided on the need for aeration to allow the materials to dry out sufficiently to meet compaction requirements? 8. Are estimated shrink-swell factors provided? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

17

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Unknown I. Material Sites (Cont.) Yes No or N/A *9. Do the proven material site quantities satisfy the estimated project quantity needs? 10. Where materials will be excavated from below the water table, has seasonal fluctuation of the water table been determined? 11. Are special permit requirements covered? 12. Have pit reclamation requirements been covered adequately? 13. Has a material site sketch (plan and profile) been provided for inclusion in the plans, which contains:

Material site number? North arrow and legal subdivision? Test hole or test pit logs, location, number and date?

Water table elevation and date? Depth of unsuitable overburden which will have to be stripped?

Suggested overburden disposal area? Proposed mining area and previously mined areas?

Existing stockpile locations? Existing or suggested access roads? Bridge load limits? Reclamation details?

14. Are recommended special provisions provided? * A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project. CHKLSTMJ.DOT

Documents

SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SFRTA…wavestreetcar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2014-0… · · 2017-07-19SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SFRTA)