NV5 - Geo Report - Paramount MWC Dated 10-13-14 - 2015-04-29 Searchable

N
V5
Miami Office
GEOTECFINICAL ENGINEERING I FOUNDATION ENGINEERING I GEOTECHNICAL TESTING I SOIL BORINGS/MONITORING WELLS I CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING
October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman
Miami Worldcenter
1010 NE 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33132
Re:
Report 5 - Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Study

Proposed Miami Worldcenter Tower 2
SW Corner of Intersection NE 7th Street & NE 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida
NV5 Project No. 146566
Dear Mr. Feldman:

NV5, Inc. (formerly KACO), submits this report in fulfillment of the scope of
services described in our Proposal No. 14-0093rev dated July 2, 2014. The work was
authorized in our contract with you dated June 26, 2014. This report describes our
understanding of the project, presents our evaluations, and provides our professional
opinions and recommendations for foundation design and construction for the project.
Sincerely,
NV5, INC.
(
ujav
fE.LD
......
/v : .7131.;
97,40
(0,0-11t
6f:if/Ma/Ts 11W-A44
Garfield L. VV-14117. E OF i4tDirector of GthjehrplihR9VP 1-Cg

N*0
Florida LicenseiNOWAL
E.
Barry R. Goldstein, P.E.

Senior Vice-President
Florida License No. 51641
Enclosures/
Distribution:
2 Copies to Addressee via U.S. Mail

1 Copy to Addressee via Email
1 Copy to NV5 File
f:tdocInv5 reports146566.t2_geo_rpt miami world center 706-ft tower 2 ne ist ave ne 8th ne 9th st miami workicenter_10-03-14.doc
OFFICES NATIONWIDE
14486 COMMERCE WAY I MIAMI LAKES, FL 33016 I WWW.NV5.COM I OFFICE: 305.666.3563 I FIRE CA 1129065
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE INFRASTRUC I
ENGINEERING ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0
SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION
2.0
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
3.0
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
3.1
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
FIELD EXPLORATION
LABORATORY TESTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
3
4
4
4
5
5.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.0
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
6.1
ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT
6.2
BASEMENT TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
6.3
6.3.1 Basement Excavation Support
6.3.2 Basement Dewatering
6.3.3 Stability of Basement Excavation
MISCELLANEOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.4
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
7.1
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
7.2
7.2.1 ACIP Pile Foundations
7. 2. 2 Drilled Shafts
7.2.3 Miscellaneous Structures
GROUND FLOOR SLABS
7.3
BELOW-GRADE/RETAINING WALLS
7.4
PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN
7.5
7.5.1 Flexible Pavements
7.5.2 Rigid Pavements
SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION
7.6
EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING
7.7
7.8
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0
REPORT LIMITATIONS
9.0 CLOSURE
7
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
16
16
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
N V

Miami Worldcenter
Report of Geotechnical Study Miami Worldcenter Tower 2
FIGURES
Drawing 1
Drawing 2
October 13, 2014

Page 2
NV5 Project No.: 146566
Site Vicinity Map & Test Location Plan

Generalized Subsurface Profile (Sheets 2A through 2C)
APPENDICES
Appendix A Boring Logs (A-1 through A-24)
Appendix B Grain Size Distribution Curve (B-1)
N V 5
October 13, 2014

Page 1

Miami Worldcenter
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

Based on our review of September 19, 2014 40 percent Design
Development project drawings prepared by Elkus Manfredi Architects we
understand the Miami Worldcenter (MWC) project is to be developed over 3-1/2
city blocks in downtown Miami, Florida, bounded by the FEC Railroad right-of-way
and NE 10th streets to the south and north respectively, and NE 1st and 2nd
avenues to the west and east respectively as depicted in Drawing 1 and shown in
the figure below. These blocks are collectively known as Phase IA and referred to
as Blocks C, D, F, and H.
View of MWC Project blocks
The Tower 2 site occupies the western one-third of the block that is
bounded by NE 8th and 9th Streets, and NE 1st and 2nd avenues as depicted by
Drawing 1. The site is currently an asphalt-paved parking lot. Based on an
undated site survey prepared by Perimeter Surveying and Mapping that we were
provided, the ground surface elevation is estimated to be around +11.5 to +12.5
feet with respect to the 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

Miami Worldcenter
Repoit of Geotechnical Study Miami Worldcenter Tower 2
October 13, 2014

Page 2
We understand that the project will construct a 706-foot-tall tower with a

curved footprint that, except for required setbacks, will occupy most of the block in
the north-south direction. The tower will be about 90 feet wide at its northern and
southern ends, widening to about 120 feet near its center. It will measure of about
275 feet along the curved centerline. The lower 10 levels of the tower will be the
tower lobby, retail, and parking.
At this time we do not understand there to be any significant basements
planned. We do understand however that a tunnel is to be constructed from the
mall service area in the middle of Block D to a small basement beneath Tower 2.
The 40 percent plans indicate the basement/tunnel finished floor will have a
maximum depth of about 11 to 12 feet below the retail first floor level. Based on
present site grades, some nominal amounts of fill soils maybe required to raise the
site grade for flood protection purposes.
We have not been provided with structural loads but assume they will be
between 8,000 and 10,000 kips for tower columns. We assume ground floor slabs
will be loaded to about 200 pounds per square foot.
We note that a 10-level podium containing retail, parking, and an amenities
deck will be constructed on the north, east, and south sides of the tower. A
geotechnical study for that podium structure has been performed and reported
separately.
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of our services on this project is to explore the subsurface
conditions in order to provide recommendations for foundation design and construction.
Specifically this report provides:
Drawings showing boring locations, a graphic summary of the generalized
subsurface conditions, and boring logs with detailed descriptions of the materials
encountered.
Discussion of generalized subsurface conditions at the site including groundwater
levels.
Discussion of feasible foundation type(s) for the proposed construction.
Design parameters for the recommended foundation types, including vertical and
lateral load resistance.
<> Estimates of foundation settlements.
<> Recommended design parameters for below grade and retaining walls
Recommendations for site preparation and grading, including the re-use of siteexcavated materials for fill, fill placement and compaction, and slab subgrade
preparation.
Preliminary recommendations for flexible and rigid pavements
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 3
Construction considerations including excavation support and dewatering, and

impacts for adjacent structures.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface conditions were explored with four engineering test borings
drilled to a depth of 200 feet below existing grade at the approximate locations shown
on Drawing 1. The test locations were marked and identified in the field by NV5. We
note that the boring numbers result from the numbering system that was adopted for the
overall field exploration program for the entire MWC project.
The borings were drilled in accessible locations with a truck-mounted drill rig
utilizing the rotary wash method. Samples of the subsurface materials were recovered
at roughly 2-foot intervals within the upper 10 feet of the borings and at approximately 5foot intervals thereafter using a Standard Penetration Test split-spoon sampler (SPT) in
substantial accordance with ASTM D-1586, "Standard Test Method for Standard
Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." This test procedure drives a 1.4inch I.D. split-tube sampler into the subsurface profile using a 140-pound hammer falling
30 inches. The total number of blows required to drive the sampler the second and third
six-inch increments is the SPT N-value, in blows per foot, and is an indication of
material strength. In addition to the SPT testing, 2.8-inch-diameter coring was
performed at various elevations within selected borings using an NX-size core barrel.
The coring was generally performed in runs five feet long. Upon completion of the
borings, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and the upper few feet closed
with cement grout.
The soil/rock samples recovered from the borings were classified by a
geotechnical engineer. The collected samples were later re-examined to confirm field
classifications. Visual soil classifications were made in accordance with ASTM D2487
and ASTM D2488. The results of the classification and consequent generalized
stratification are shown in Drawing 2 (sheets 2A through 2C), the generalized
subsurface profile, and in the records of test borings in Appendix A (sheets A-1 through
A-24). Strata contacts shown on these drawings are approximate. The boring data
reflect conditions at the specific test location only, and at the time the borings were
drilled.
In addition to the general stratification shown on the drawings, also presented are
additional data related to the rock coring. The percent recovery (REC) shown is the
total length of material recovered expressed as a percentage of the core run length.
The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is the total length of pieces of rock four inches or
greater in length, expressed as a percentage of the total length of the core run. Finally,
the boring logs present also the time required in seconds to advance each foot of rock
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 4
core.
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing consisted of determination of the following:
natural moisture content (ASTM D-2216)
grain size distribution (ASTM D-422)
o unconfined compressive strength of rock cores (ASTM D-2938)
splitting tensile strength of rock cores (ASTM D-3967)
The laboratory test results are presented and discussed under the subsurface
conditions section, Section 5 of this report and in Appendix B.
4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Miami-Dade County is located on the southern flank of a stable carbonate
platform on which thick deposits of limestones, dolomites and evaporites have
accumulated. The upper two hundred feet of the subsurface profile is composed
predominantly of limestone and quartz sand. These sediments were deposited during
several glacial and interglacial stages when the ocean was at elevations higher than
present.
In many portions of Miami-Dade County, surface sand deposits of the Pamlico
Formation are encountered. The Pamlico sands overlie the Miami Limestone. In
western Miami-Dade County, portions of the Everglades Region interfinger with the
Pamlico sand. The Everglades soil consists of peat and calcareous silt (marl).
The Miami Limestone is a soft to moderately hard, white, porous to very porous,
sometimes sandy, oolitic calcareous cemented grainstone. The formation outcrops in
portions of Miami-Dade County. The Miami Limestone has a maximum thickness of
about 35 feet along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and thins sharply near the coastline and
more gradually in a westerly direction. The Miami Limestone was formed about
130,000 years ago at a time when the sea level was twenty-five feet higher than it is
today. This environment facilitated formation of concentrically layered sand sized
carbonate grains called oolites. These grains formed by repeated precipitation of
calcium carbonate around the nucleus of a sand or shell grain.
The Miami Limestone can be separated into two facies: the barrier bar oolitic
facies and the tidal shoal limestone facies. The barrier bar facies is characterized by
lenses of oolitic limestone separated by intermittent, 1-inch thick or less, uncemented
sand layers (cross-bedded limestone). Zones of higher porosity are characteristic and
N V

Miami Worldcenter
Report of Geotechnical Study - Miami Worldcenter Tower 2
October 13, 2014

Page 5
parallel the bedding planes of the cross-bedded limestone. The tidal shoal limestone
facies is characterized by a distinct lack of bedding planes. In addition, burrowing
organisms have churned previously deposited sediments, which have resulted in high
porosity channels in the rock. These ancient channels give the rock an appearance of a
hardened sponge in some areas.
The Fort Thompson Formation underlies the Miami Limestone, and includes
sand, sandstone, and limestone. The upper zones of the Fort Thompson Formation
consist of sand having a thickness ranging from 5 to 35 feet. The remainder of the
formation consists of coralline limestone, quartz sandstone, sandy limestone and
freshwater limestone. The type of soils within the formation and the degree of
cementation vary with lateral extent and depth.
The Fort Thompson Formation is underlain by the Tamiami Formation. The
Tamiami Formation consists of sands, silts, clays, and sometime fossiliferous limestone.
The upper portions of the Tamiami Formation are permeable and make up the lower
reaches of the Biscayne Aquifer. This formation ranges in thickness from zero to 300
feet in South Florida.
4.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The South Florida area is relatively free of geologic hazards. The region is not
Consequently hazards such as ground shaking,
considered seismically active.
liquefaction, and ground rupture that are normally associated with earthquake and other
seismic activity are generally not a factor for the design of structure foundations in
South Florida. Based on the 2009 International Building Code, a Site Class C
classification is considered appropriate for this site.
Karst topography that is associated with the formation of sinkholes and other
underground discontinuities in carbonate rock formations in the central and northern
portions of Florida is generally not found in South Florida. Any discontinuities in the
limestone due to solutioning of the rock are typically very limited in vertical and lateral
extent and are usually not considered a factor in the design of foundations in the local
practice.
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

In general, the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings are consistent
with the geology described above. The detailed subsurface conditions are presented
graphically in the attached generalized subsurface profile (Drawing 2) and in more detail
on the records of test boring sheets in Appendix A. The subsurface conditions
disclosed by the borings can be generalized as described below.

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 6
Layer 1 Surficial Sand with Limestone Fragments:

This layer consists of sand with limestone fragments that is on average about 2
feet thick in the borings. The near-surface materials that contain more limestone
fragments are likely fill materials. SPT N-values recorded in this layer range from
5 to 48 blows per foot (bpf) with an average value of 29 bpf indicating a layer that
is on average medium dense to dense.
Layer 2 Limestone:
This layer comprises limestone and is about 15 to 23 feet thick in the borings.
The stratum is very soft to moderately hard with SPT N-values ranging from 9 to
greater than 50 bpf with an average value of 31 bpf.
Layer 3 Sand:
Beneath the limestone the borings encountered sand that is about 10 to 15 feet
thick in the borings. The stratum is on average medium dense with an average
SPT N-value of 20 bpf, the values ranging between 6 and greater than 38 bpf.
Laver 4 Limestone with Interbedded Sand Layers:
This layer consists of limestone with interbedded sand layers and extends to the
termination depths of the borings. The SPT N-values recorded in this stratum
average at least 48 bpf, and the values range from less than one (weight of
sample hammer) to greater than 50 bpf. A rock core from Boring B-29 between
100 and 105 feet below grade had an unconfined compressive strength of 2,110
psi, and a splitting tensile strength of 579 psi.
Groundwater:
Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths of 7 and roughly 10 feet
below the existing ground surface. Based on ground surface elevations at the
borings, these depths correspond approximately to elevations of +2.2 to +5.6 feet
NGVD.
We note the higher readings around Elevation +5 to +5.5 feet NGVD likely does
not represent a stabilized groundwater level but rather a water level that was
disturbed by drilling. On average, stabilized groundwater levels in the general
vicinity of the project are expected to vary between elevations +0 to +4 feet
NGVD, the variations being primarily as a result of tidal fluctuations and seasonal
rainfall. Storm and hurricane events and construction activities also result in
variations in the groundwater levels. Notwithstanding the variations
acknowledged, we anticipate that groundwater at the site will generally be
encountered within the upper 10 or so feet of the existing ground surface.
From a design standpoint, we note that historically high groundwater levels of +7
to +8 feet NGVD have been recorded as a result of major storm events in Miami
based on records kept since about 1939. Project designers should use this
information to select a "prudent" high water level for design.
N V
October 13, 2014

Page 7

Miami Worldcenter
The results of the physical laboratory tests are summarized in Table 1 below.
The grain size distribution curves are presented in Appendix B as sheet B-1. For the
layers described above, Table 2 below summarizes our estimates of engineering
parameters considered pertinent to the design of the project foundations. We note that
the values of allowable side shear estimated in Table 2 are based on our experience
and laboratory data as well as data for similar rock that we have tested.
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth
(ft.)
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
B-29
B-29
28-30
100 - 105
23.0
4.7
Percent
Finer Than
US No.
200 Sieve
(%)
2.4
-
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
134.9
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
Splitting
Tensile
Strength
(psi)
2,110
579
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERTINENT ENGINEERING PARAMETERS

SPT
Modulus
Unconfined Allowable
of
Compressive
Side
N-values
Shear
Strength
Elasticity
Layer
Thickness
Range Avg.
(ksf)
(ksf)
(ksf)
Description
(ft.)
ID
500
1
Fill and Surficial Sand
2+
5 48
29
300
3
2
15 - 23
9 50+
31
10,000
Limestone
450
3
Sand
10 - 15
6 38
20
10 000
300 - 350
3-5
175+
<1 50+ 48+
'
4
Limestone with Sand
15,000
6.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

6.1 FOUNDATION SUPPORT
We consider the site suitable for the proposed project from a geotechnical
perspective. The primary concern for foundation design and construction include
support of the proposed new structure loads without unacceptable settlement. Given
the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, and the anticipated structure
loads, we conclude that deep foundation support is appropriate for the proposed tower.
Consistent with current practice in the South Florida area we consider augered,
cast-in-place (ACIP) piles to be the most feasible foundation type for this project. Other
deep foundation systems such as driven piles and drilled shafts are not considered
feasible. In addition to the noise nuisance, vibrations from driven pile foundations could
N V
Mr, Benjamin Feldman

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 8
NV5 Project No.. 146566
adversely impact existing buildings on the site as well as those on adjacent properties.
Additionally, it would be difficult to penetrate the hard upper zones in the limestone and
sandstone rock at the site to sufficient depths to provide adequate uplift capacity on the
driven piles.
Drilled shafts are typically economically feasible and attractive only where they
are used to carry very large loads that sufficiently justify the slower installation rates and
other installation difficulties attendant with such foundations.
Drilled shafts are
technically feasible for this project but in our experience, based on the local foundation
practice, and the powerful ACIP equipment currently available for installing deep, largediameter piles, this foundation type will likely not be cost-competitive.
Thirty (30)-inch-diameter ACIP piles can be considered for support the proposed
tower. These piles are anticipated to be about 145 to 150 feet long below the currently
existing grade.
Detailed foundation design and construction recommendations including sizes,
lengths, and axial and lateral load capacities for ACIP piles are presented in the
recommendations section (Section 7) of this report. Notwithstanding the discussion
above, we were requested to provide design parameters for drilled shafts so that
comparative cost analyses can be performed. These design parameters are presented
in Section 7 as well.
6.2 ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT
Due to the variable nature of subsurface soil and rock conditions and the
complex interaction of the foundation systems and the host soil and rock masses,
analysis of foundation settlements for high-rise structures in the South Florida area is
not an exact science. Areal settlement of the heavy tower will be a function of the net
loading intensity applied to the subsurface strata as well as the compressibility of the
foundation system and subsurface materials. The project design and the construction
schedule should be planned to accommodate the anticipated structure settlements.
Connections to the tower such as lateral piping and duct banks should be deferred until
tower construction is near completion. The following settlement estimates are based on
our analyses, as well as our extensive experience with high-rise structures in the
southeast Florida area.
Assuming an overall base pressure of between 9 and 11 ksf for the proposed
tower, we estimate that foundation settlements for piles 145 to 150 feet long will be on
the order of 2-1/2 to three (3) inches, with edge-to-center differential settlements on the
order of one to 1-1/2 inches.
The granular nature of the subsurface materials at the site will result in the
majority of the tower settlement occurring during construction and for a short time period
(typically less than two months) following substantial completion of the top level.
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 9
Additional small settlements of the tower could occur after structural completion as
interior walls, cladding, finishes etc. are added to the building. The settlements of the
structure are expected to be relatively uniform. As the structure height increases the
tower should become stiffer thereby reducing the potential for differential edge-to-center
settlements. Differential movements of the pile cap system will result in redistribution of
loads in the superstructure and among the pile caps.
At the ground level, the settlements will manifest as an areal drop in grade rather
than abrupt differential movement between the pile caps and the immediately adjacent
soil grade. As a result, podium structures with piles tipped at relatively higher elevations,
as well as lightly loaded structures that are close to the tower foundation and that are
not pile supported could be impacted by this areal drop in grade. The zone of influence
and the rate of settlement attenuation away from the tower footprint is determined by
the magnitude of the settlement, and the geometry and layout of the tower foundations,
in particular the location of heavy cores with respect to the edges of the footprint.
6.3 BASEMENT TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
For construction of basements in South Florida, consideration has to be given not
only to the support of the basement excavation, but as well to methods that will facilitate
a dry basement excavation during construction. The proposed basement tunnel floor
will be at 11 to 12 feet below the retail first floor and the excavations are expected to
extend another 2 to 3 feet below that depth. The sections below present a general
discussion of the basement construction issues.
6.3.1 Basement Excavation Support
Basement excavation support in the Miami area is typically achieved through
sheet piles, tangent or secant ACIP pile walls, and DSM walls. Other methods including
slurry walls, soil-freezing, and soldier piles and lagging are also available, but have
found much more limited use locally. For this project where the basement footprint will
be relatively small and localized compared to the overall tower footprint, it is likely that
sheet piles or tangent ACIP pile walls will be used for excavation support. If sheet piles
are selected consideration should be given to the potential vibration impacts on
adjacent structures, especially the Metro Mover facilities, and also the potential sheet
installation difficulty due to isolated hard zones in the upper limestone as indicated by
high SPT N-values such as at borings B-25, B-29, and B-34.
Temporary support for basement excavations is typically performed as designbuild. The project design and construction team will have to consider the benefits of
each of these systems with respect to cost and schedule. Regardless of the option
selected NV5 should review on the Owner's behalf, the geotechnical aspects of such
designs.
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 10
6.3.2 Basement Dewatering

The basement bottom of slab and bottom of pile cap excavations could extend as
low as elevations -1 to -4 feet NGVD. Average site groundwater elevations are
expected to be between +0 and +4 feet NGVD. It is therefore expected that dewatering
will be required for construction of the proposed basement. Several options are
available for dewatering and these can be used in conjunction with any of the
excavation support methods above. Any of the above excavation support methods that
also act as seepage cut-off will make the task of dewatering easier.
The excavation could be kept dry by well-point dewatering. However over the
long-term this is costly and results in the need to dispose of large volumes of water.
Alternatively, after excavating to depth, an anchored tremie concrete seal slab can be
poured to resist the hydrostatic-uplift so that long-term dewatering is not required.
Other methods for sealing the basement excavation include construction of a soil mix or
jet grout plug. However given the relatively small footprints of basement construction
compared to the overall podium footprint, it is anticipated these latter methods might not
be cost-effective.
6.3.3 Stability of Basement Excavation
During construction the dewatered basement will be subjected to hydrostatic uplift
forces. The basement construction method selected must ensure that those hydrostatic
uplift forces can be resisted with an adequate factor of safety. Smaller diameter piles
can be installed as anchors as required.
6.4 MISCELLANEOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental forces consist of sinkholes, freeze thaw damage, shrinking and
swelling soils, and hurricane scour can affect the performance of a foundation system.
Sinkholes, freeze-thaw, and shrinking/swelling soils are generally not of concern in the
South Florida area. While a detailed study of hurricane scour was outside the scope of
this study, it is nonetheless our opinion that the foundation systems recommended
herein when properly designed and constructed, will resist hurricane scour forces. It is
therefore our opinion that these specific environmental forces have a low risk (on a
scale of low, moderate, high) of adversely affecting deep foundation performance at this
site provided the foundation system is designed and constructed as recommended
herein.
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 11
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations for geotechnical design and construction of the proposed

project are provided below in the following sections.
7.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
1.
Geotechnical site preparation for construction should consist of removal of all

existing structures, foundations, pavements, underground utilities, and other
deleterious materials within proposed structure and pavement footprints plus a
five-foot perimeter. Any voids created by the removal of these deleterious
materials should be properly backfilled as described in the paragraphs below.
No information has been provided about previous or existing foundations at the
site and we are not aware of the site development history beyond the currently
existing structures. Where old spread or other foundations are encountered, they
should be removed and replaced with compacted fill if they interfere with new
foundations or utilities. If the old foundations do not interfere with new
construction they could be left in place. Backfilling of old foundation excavations
should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this
report.
After site preparation as described above, areas for structures that will have
slabs on grade or pavements should be proof rolled and densified with a heavy
roller. The proof rolling should be observed by NV5 to identify and mitigate any
weak subgrade conditions evidenced by yielding or rutting at the wheels of the
roller or truck. Proof-rolling should include planned development footprints plus a
five-foot perimeter.
2.
In general fill soils should consist of either inorganic, non-plastic sand having less
than 10 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve, or crushed limestone with a
maximum rock size of six (6) inches. In particular, fill soils placed within the
upper 12 inches of the subgrade of building slabs on grade should consist of
either sand with less than 10 percent passing the number 200 sieve, or crushed
limestone with a maximum particle size of three inches.
Based on our boring data the near-surface sandy materials should satisfy the fill
criteria, but might require localized sorting and moisture-conditioning prior to reuse. In any event, representative samples of the fill soils should be collected for
classification and compaction testing. The maximum dry density, optimum
moisture content, gradation, and plasticity should be determined. These tests
are needed for quality control of the compacted fill.
N V 5
October 13, 2014

Page 12

Miami Worldcenter
3.
Fill soils should be placed with loose lift thicknesses of not more than 12-inches,
moisture-conditioned to within two (2) percent of the optimum moisture content
based on ASTM D-1557, and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative
compaction'. One test should be performed for each 2,500 square feet of fill
area per lift of fill soils. If during the compaction process fill shows evidence of
yielding under the weight of the roller, it should be removed and replaced with
properly compacted granular fill as described herein. Fill particles exceeding one
(1) inch in size should not be allowed to nest within the fill.
4.
The vibrations produced by the operation of the compactor should be monitored

for potential adverse effect on adjacent existing structures, pavements, and
utilities. If nearby structures will be affected by the vibration of the compactor,
the compaction procedure may require modification as approved by the
geotechnical engineer.
7.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT

7.2.1 ACIP Pile Foundations
1.
Our recommended pile tip elevations, allowable pile axial capacities, and grout
strengths for foundation support are presented in the table below.
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF PILE ALLOWABLE AXIAL CAPACITIES
Pile
Diameter
(in)
30
Min. Pile Tip

Elevation
(ft. NGVD)
-140
Allowable
Compression
(tons)
950
Allowable
Tension
(tons)
425
Minimum
Grout
Strength
(ksi)
9
Notes:
1. Minimum pile tip elevation based on an average site grade of +10 feet NGVD at the time of the borings.
2. Required grout strength is for a 56-day test for tower piles.
3. The High Velocity Hurricane Zone sections 1822 through 1828 of the 2010 Florida Building Code do not
specifically address the allowable stress in the pile section for ACIP piles. We have assumed that the 0.30fc
allowed in Section 1810 of the Code is applicable for ACIP piles also. This should be confirmed with the
local Building Official.
2.
For computer structural modeling of the tower, an initial vertical spring constant
of 1,000 kips per inch (kpi) may be used for the 30-inch-diameter piles. The
vertical spring constant is the working pile load divided by the estimated pile
settlement and is based on our experience and a review of available pile load
test data in similar subsurface conditions. The initial spring constant value
should be refined as the structural model is developed. The design value used
Relative compaction refers to the in-place dry unit weight of a material expressed as a percentage of the maximum
dry unit weight of the same material as determined in the laboratory using the Modified Proctor procedure (ASTM
D1557).
N V
October 13, 2014

Page 13

Miami Worldcenter
should match the settlement estimates.

Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by passive pressure acting on the
pile caps and grade beams, friction between the subgrade and bases of
foundation elements, and the lateral resistance of the piles. Equivalent fluid
densities of 180 and 80 pounds per cubic foot may be used to compute the
passive pressures acting against the sides of the pile caps and grade beams
above and below the groundwater table respectively. Passive resistance of the
upper one foot of soil should be neglected, unless it is confined by a slab or
pavement. Frictional resistance between the soil and bottom of foundation
elements should be computed by multiplying the sustained dead loads by a
coefficient of 0.3. The above values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
3.
To evaluate the lateral capacity of the piles, we have performed lateral load
analyses using the LPILE computer program to estimate the performance of the
piles under lateral loading. Both fixed and free pile head conditions were
assumed in order to establish the upper and lower bounds for lateral capacity of
the piles. In reality, the degree of fixity at the pile head will fall somewhere
between the two extremes. The structural engineer should assess the
anticipated pile head condition and choose allowable lateral load capacities
accordingly. Our recommendations for allowable pile lateral capacity for the two
pile head conditions are presented in Table 4 below. The recommended
capacities assume that the piles and their caps can safely tolerate horizontal
deflections on the order of 1/4 to 3/8 inch. If required, we can provide higher lateral
capacities associated with batter piles or with vertical piles where larger
horizontal pile head deflections are allowed. The pile lateral resistance can be
assumed to act at the base of the pile cap.
TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF PILE ALLOWABLE LATERAL CAPACITIES
Pile Diameter
(in)
Allowable
Lateral Load
(kips)
30 (1/4" to 3/8")
30 (up to 1/2")
60
80
30 (1/4" to 3/8")
30 (up to 1/2")
120
180
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Maximum
Bending
Moment
(in-kips)
Free Head
4800
6420
Fixed Head
7270
9850
Depth to Max.
Bending
Moment
(ft.)
Depth to
Zero
Moment
(ft.)
10
10
15
15
0
0
15
15
Lateral load capacities based on pile head movement of Xs to 3/8 inch

Bending moments listed above are unfactored.
The depths in table above referenced to the bottom of pile cap/top of pile.
Pile reinforcing should be designed by the structural engineer to resist the

tension and lateral forces applied to the pile systems. We recommend that piles

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 14
The information
resisting tension be reinforced over their entire length.
presented above for depths to maximum and zero moments should be used to
design reinforcement lengths for piles resisting lateral loads. If the pile is not
reinforced over the entire length, we recommend as a minimum, a single No. 7
bar be installed the full length of the pile to verify pile cross-section continuity.
5.
Foundations should be designed so that a minimum center to center pile spacing

of three pile diameters is maintained.
6.
We recommended that a load test program be performed for the project prior to
the start of production piling. This will allow for the test results to be analyzed,
and for pile recommendations to be revised if necessary. Based on load test
results pile capacities and/or lengths may be adjusted. The pile load test program
should consist of one (1) compression load test (ASTM D 1143), one (1) tension
load test (ASTM D 3689) and one (1) lateral load test (ASTM D 3966) for each
pile diameter and pile tip chosen. Load tests should be performed and results
interpreted in accordance with the most current edition of the Florida Building
Code. We recommend the use of strain gauge pairs in all test piles to evaluate
pile load transfer. Upon final selection of the load test location, NV5 will provide
recommendations for the locations (\Amt. to elevation) of the pile instrumentation.
The minimum test loads should be twice the pile working capacity. We
recommend the compression load test(s) be designed to allow overloading of the
test pile(s) to 2.5 times the design working load after completion of the standard
compression test loading and unloading procedure.
7.
Test piles shall not be used as production piles. Upon approval by the
geotechnical engineer, reaction piles may be installed in production locations
provided such piles are properly installed to meet the project specifications and
are monitored for movement during load testing.
8.
NV5 should review and approve the contractor's load testing submittal with
respect to test locations, test pile installation, and load testing equipment and
procedures. The geotechnical engineer should also monitor and report the
results of test pile installation and load testing.
9.
We note that the borings encountered zones of very hard rock at the site. These
are indicated on the generalized subsurface profiles shown on Drawing 2 as
material with refusal type SPT N-values typically exceeding 50 bpf. Some of
these materials are encountered at elevations above the recommended pile tip
elevations. The contractor must mobilize the appropriate equipment in order to
drill through this hard rock and achieve the tip elevations recommended herein.
10.
Piles should be installed within three inches of specified plan location, and within
two percent of vertical or batter line.
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 15
11.
During grouting of the pile excavation, the auger should be raised at a rate
consistent with the capacity of the pump to ensure the entire pile shaft is
uniformly grouted and to prevent caving of soils into the pile excavation. The
actual grout volume for each ACIP pile should be at least 15 percent greater than
the theoretical pile volume. A grout head of at least five feet should be
maintained throughout the grouting of the pile shaft. Production piles should be
installed in a manner similar to the successfully tested pile.
12.
If during pile grouting any abnormalities such as sudden pressure drop or low
grout take for a given interval of pile length are observed, the auger should be readvanced to about five feet below the elevation where the anomaly was
observed and the pile shaft properly re-grouted. Pumping should continue while
the auger is rotated back down to the required remedial depth.
13.
New piles should not be installed close to previously installed piles before the
existing pile grout has started to set. As a guideline, the closest distance for
installing adjacent piles within six hours should be the greater of eight feet or
three pile diameters.
14.
Grout should be sampled during piling installation at a minimum frequency

corresponding to the greater of one set of at least seven cubes each morning
and afternoon during production or one set of at least seven cubes for each 50
cubic yards of grout placed. Cubes should be tested for compressive strength at
the following intervals: one at 7, one at 14, and two at 28 days, and two at 56
days.
15.
The steel reinforcement should be installed into the pile shaft immediately upon
withdrawal of the grouting auger. Spacers should be fitted to the reinforcing
cages to assure that they remain centered within the grouted shaft and maintain
the required side cover. If obstructions are encountered during insertion of the
steel cage, the cage should be extracted, the pile shaft re-drilled to at least five
feet below the elevation of the obstruction and re-grouted to the ground surface,
and the reinforcement re-installed.
16.
We recommend that an NV5 inspector provides full-time quality control

inspection to document the excavation and grouting of each pile and to provide,
in conjunction with a licensed office engineer, any necessary field adjustments of
pile tip elevations. If Ownership retains another geotechnical engineer to
observe foundation installation, that engineer will be required to accept full
responsibility for the foundation performance.
17.
The foundations for the tower should be extensively monitored during

construction to confirm settlement predictions and document building
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 16
performance. The monitoring should consist of a number of benchmarks placed

at accessible first floor column and shear wall locations. NV5 should approve the
locations of the benchmarks. The settlement benchmarks should be referenced
to a stable offsite benchmark that will not be subject to tampering or be affected
by the areal tower settlement. The benchmarks should be surveyed by a
professional surveyor on a regular basis, and the data provided to NV5 for
review.
18.
In addition to benchmark surveys of foundation settlement performance, we

recommend also that three production piles selected by NV5 be instrumented
with up to five pairs of strain gages. NV5 should provide specific elevations for
the gages, inspect the gage installation, provide construction-phase monitoring of
the gages, and evaluate the gauge readings.
19.
Construction of any structural links between the tower and the adjacent podium
should be delayed until the tower is substantially complete and the majority of
building settlement has occurred. If this is not practical we recommend the
spans connecting the closest portions of the tower and the store be designed to
accommodate differential movements up to 1/2 to one (1) inch.
7.2.2 Drilled Shafts

1.
For the purposes of performing cost comparisons of drilled shafts to ACIP pile
foundations, the average available side shear value in rock may be taken as of 3
ksf. However, one of the issues with drilled shaft installation is the degradation in
mobilized side shear due to the formation of a slurry filter cake. While we are
aware that there have been advances in polymer slurry design, any analysis of
drilled shaft capacity should take this into account. Ultimately, any side shear
values assumed for design would have to be proved through instrumentation and
testing of a test shaft.
2.
We do not recommend use of end bearing in drilled shaft capacity computations.
7.2.3 Miscellaneous Structures

1.
Lightly loaded miscellaneous structures such as guard huts, planters and small
retaining walls be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf.
The parameters presented above for lateral load resistance may be used in the
design of these shallow footings. Footings must bear at a minimum depth of 12
inches below lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings should be at least 16
inches wide and isolated footings should be at least 24 inches wide. Exposed
bearing soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction.

Miami Worldcenter
2.
7.3
October 13, 2014

Page 17
With the shallow footing bearing pressure recommended above, we expect

settlement of such footings for lightly loaded structures will be on the order of one
(1) inch, with differential settlement one the order of one-half inch.
GROUND FLOOR SLABS
1.
Ground floor slabs may be supported on grade assuming the site is prepared as
recommended under Section 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading above.
2.
For slab design we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds

per cubic inch (pci).
3.
Slabs should be reinforced for the loads that they will sustain and construction
joints should be provided at frequent intervals.
4.
Slabs in contact with soil are subject to movement of moisture from the soil
upward through the slab. To prevent such moisture vapor transmission, a
moisture barrier should be placed on the slab subgrade, and should be protected
from damage during construction. Construction joints should be provided with
water stops in any permanently submerged areas.
5.
Construction of the ground floor slab should also take into account the
anticipated settlement performance of the tower. Delayed floor slab placement
can be considered to reduce settlement-related cracking and/or slabs should be
left roughed for placement of a topping slab once the structures are complete
and settlements have mostly stopped.
7.4 BELOW-GRADE/RETAINING WALLS

1.
In addition to the basement walls, retaining walls could be constructed for loading
docks or other landscape/hardscape features. Walls that will be restrained at the
top should be designed to resist at-rest earth pressures. We recommend that the
earth pressures be determined using a triangular distribution and an equivalent
fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Walls that are free to rotate at the
top such as site retaining walls should be designed for active earth pressures
using a triangular pressure distribution with an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf.
For walls that are submerged the corresponding equivalent fluid densities of 90
and 80 pcf should be used should be used for at-rest and active earth pressures
respectively. A lateral coefficient of 0.4 and a rectangular pressure distribution
should be used to compute the effect of surface surcharges on the walls.
2.
Walls in permanently submerged areas should be properly waterproofed.
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 18
7.5 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN

This section presents recommendations for design of any pavements that could be
associated with the tower construction. Flexible pavements would be used for
passenger and other light vehicles. Rigid pavements would be required for loading
docks and other truck-trafficked areas associated with the tower. Pavements should be
designed and constructed in accordance with the current editions of the appropriate
Florida Department of Transportation's pavement design manuals.
7.5.1 Flexible Pavements
1.
Flexible asphalt pavements should be used for light-duty traffic areas. Flexible
pavement subgrades should be prepared as described under Section 7.1, Site
Preparation and Grading. We recommend the following preliminary minimum
flexible asphalt pavement section:
2 inches of S-1 or S-3 surface course
8 inches of limerock base course compacted to at least 98 percent relative
compaction. The limerock base should have a minimum Limerock
Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 100 percent. The base course can also be an
asphaltic concrete material (FDOT specified ABC-3 or equivalent with a
minimum Marshall Stability of 1,000 Ibs).
12 inches of stabilized subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. The subgrade should have a minimum with a minimum LBR
of 40 percent as specified by Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) requirements for Type B or Type C Stabilized Subgrade.
2.
We recommend that the bottom of the stabilized subgrade be at least 18-inches

above the seasonal high groundwater table.
7.5.2 Rigid Pavements

1.
We recommend using rigid (concrete) pavements in heavy-duty traffic areas such

as for loading docks and the dumpster pads. The rigid pavement subgrades
should be prepared as described under Section 7.1, Site Preparation and
Grading. We recommend the following preliminary minimum rigid pavement
section:
8 inches of unreinforced Portland Cement concrete (Type 1) with a
minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch.
8 inches of limerock base course compacted to at least 98 percent relative
compaction. The limerock base should have a minimum Limerock
Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 100 percent.
12 inches of stabilized subgrade compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction. The subgrade should have a minimum with a minimum LBR
a

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 19
of 40 percent as specified by Florida Department of Transportation

(FDOT) requirements for Type B or Type C Stabilized Subgrade.
2.
The pavement should be provided with appropriately spaced jointing for crack
control.
We recommend that the bottom of the stabilized subgrade be at least 18-inches
above the seasonal high groundwater table.
7.6 SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION

For seismic design at the project site short period (Ss) and 1-second (Si) spectral
acceleration values of 0.075g and 0.040g may be used, where g is the acceleration due
to gravity.
7.7
1.
EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING

Shallow excavations into the near-surface materials will likely stand vertical for
short periods of time only. The excavation sides will unravel over time as they
are exposed to weather and construction traffic. In general, the Layer II
limestone is expected to stand vertically unsupported if excavated. However
localized weaker sandy zones within this layer could become loose if
unsupported. Deeper excavations, especially those that extend below the
groundwater table, as well as excavations that will remain open for longer
periods of time will require support in the form of temporary shoring or sliding
trench boxes to prevent instability of excavation walls and to protect workers from
injury. All excavations should comply with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) design and safety requirements. Shoring designs should
be signed and sealed by a Florida-licensed professional engineer, and should be
provided for the Owner's review.
Particular attention should be paid to any deep excavations such as for elevator
shafts, and the potential impacts these could have on adjacent structures,
especially where such excavations are close to project property lines.
3.
Average groundwater elevation is expected to be between about Elevation +0

and +4 feet NGVD for this site. The excavations for the basement tunnels could
extend as deep as elevations -1 to -4 or so feet NGVD and are therefore
expected to encounter some groundwater. Consequently some dewatering could
be required for pile cap excavations. Dewatering could also be required for the
installation of deeper utilities and appurtenances such as sewers, storm drains,
catch basins, and manholes. We judge that localized dewatering can be
accomplished using pumps and sumps. Dewatering of larger excavations and
larger volumes will require the installation of well points. All dewatering and
consequent effluent discharge should meet the requirements of the local
jurisdictional agencies including Miami-Dade County, Florida Department of
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 20
Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Department of Transportation, and

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as appropriate.
During dewatering the adjacent properties must be monitored for adverse
impacts from dewatering drawdown.
The dewatering subcontractor should submit a proposed design for dewatering
operations to the owner for review and approval prior to commencing work.
7.8 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Construction activities could have adverse impacts on structures outside the

proposed structure footprints. We recommend that pre- and post-construction
surveys of adjacent structures of concern be conducted to document conditions.
NV5 should participate in the design development phases of this project in order
to modify the recommendations provided above as changes occur during the
design development process.
3.
NV5 should participate in the evaluation of field problems as they arise and
recommend solutions. We should also be involved with site work activities so we
can address needed changes to the foundation recommendations if site
conditions different from those described herein are encountered.
4.
NV5 should observe and test the foundation installation to verify that our
recommendations have been properly implemented and to satisfy the
requirements of the Florida Building Code and municipal agencies. If Ownership
retains another geotechnical engineer to observe foundation installation, that
engineer must accept responsibility for the performance of the foundations.
8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Owner and other
members of the design/construction team for the specific projects discussed in this
report. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local
geotechnical engineering practices; no other warranty is expressed or implied.
The evaluation and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part
upon the data collected from the field exploration. The nature or extent of variations
throughout the subsurface profile may not become evident until the time of construction.
If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to evaluate our recommendations
as provided in this report. In the event changes are made in the nature, design or
locations of the proposed project construction, the conclusions and recommendations
contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed
and conclusions modified or verified in writing by NV5.
N V

Miami Worldcenter
October 13, 2014

Page 21
The scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or

investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, sinkholes, chemically hazardous
or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around
the site.
We should be provided the opportunity to review final foundation specifications
and review foundation design drawings, in order to ascertain whether our
recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. If NV5. is not
afforded the opportunity to participate in construction related aspects of foundation
installation as recommended in this report, we can accept no responsibility for the
interpretation of our recommendations made in this report or for foundation
performance.
9.0 CLOSURE
We appreciate the opportunity to provide specialized engineering services on this

project and look forward to an opportunity to participate in construction related aspects
of the development. If you have questions about information contained in this report
contact the writer at 305.901-1891.
**************

NV5 - Geo Report - Paramount MWC Dated 10-13-14 - 2015-04-29 Searchable

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NV5 - Geo Report - Paramount MWC Dated 10-13-14 - 2015-04-29 Searchable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N

October 13, 2014

Report 5 - Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Study

Dear Mr. Feldman:

Garfield L. VV-14117. E OF i4tDirector of GthjehrplihR9VP 1-Cg

Barry R. Goldstein, P.E.

2 Copies to Addressee via U.S. Mail

ENGINEERING ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Site Vicinity Map & Test Location Plan

October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

1.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

View of MWC Project blocks

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

We understand that the project will construct a 706-foot-tall tower with a

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Construction considerations including excavation support and dewatering, and

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Layer 1 Surficial Sand with Limestone Fragments:

October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PERTINENT ENGINEERING PARAMETERS

6.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

Mr, Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

6.3.2 Basement Dewatering

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Our recommendations for geotechnical design and construction of the proposed

Geotechnical site preparation for construction should consist of removal of all

October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

The vibrations produced by the operation of the compactor should be monitored

7.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORT

Min. Pile Tip

October 13, 2014

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

should match the settlement estimates.

Lateral load capacities based on pile head movement of Xs to 3/8 inch

Pile reinforcing should be designed by the structural engineer to resist the

Mr. Benjamin Feldman

October 13, 2014

Foundations should be designed so that a minimum center to center pile spacing