www.arehna.com

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

GEOTECHNICAL STRUCTURES REPORT – 100% SUBMITTAL

RIDGEMOOR BLVD. AT BROOKER CREEK BRIDGE (#154572)

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Pinellas County, Florida

FPID 445437-1-52-01

AREHNA PROJECT NO.: B-21-065.03

CONTRACT NO.: CAE83

FPID 448911-1-32-02

TWO 06

NOVEMBER 4, 2024

(Revised March 5, 2026)

Prepared For:

Michael Baker International 4211 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33607

Prepared By:

AREHNA Engineering, Inc.

5012 West Lemon Street Tampa, Florida 33609 www.arehna.com

5012 W Lemon St.

Tampa, Florida 33609 Ph 813.944.3464 │ www.arehna.com

November 4, 2024 (Revised March 5, 2026)

Mr. Giovanni Orellana, P.E.

Michael Baker International 4211 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 500 Tampa, FL 33607

P.Giovanni.Orellana@mbakerintl.com

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration – Structures Report – 100% Submittal Ridgemoor Blvd. and Brooker Creek at Brooker Creek Bridge (#154572)

Bridge Replacement Pinellas County, Florida

FPID 445437-1-52-01

Contract No.: CAE83, FPID 448911-1-32-02/TWO 06 AREHNA Project No.: B-21-065.03

AREHNA Engineering, Inc. (AREHNA) is pleased to submit this report of our geotechnical exploration for the proposed project. Services were conducted in general accordance with our proposal and fee estimate under the Miscellaneous Design Services Contract No. CAE83, FPID 448911-1-32-02.

This report presents our analyses and recommendations for the proposed bridge replacement along Ridgemoor Boulevard at Brooker Creek including our understanding of the project, an outline of our exploratory procedures, summary of field and laboratory data obtained as well as our recommendations for site preparation, design and construction. This version of the report has been updated to include a section on Recommended Structure Quantities (455 Pay Item). Reports addressing the pavement and roadway widening improvements were provided under separate covers.

AREHNA appreciates the opportunity to have assisted you on this project. Should you have any questions with regards to this report, or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact this office.

Best Regards, AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 28410

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by:

Sean Seibert, EI Kirk M. Eastman, P.E.

Engineer Intern Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida Registration 50733

On the date adjacent to the seal.

Signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Report of Geotechnical Exploration March 5, 2026 Ridgemoor Blvd. at Brooker Creek AREHNA Project B-21-065.03 Structures Report – 100% Submittal FPID 445437-1-52-01 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF WORK

1.1 Site Description and Project Characteristics

1.2 Scope of Work

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration

2.2 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 USGS Topographic Data

3.2 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Data

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

3.4 Groundwater Conditions

3.5 Estimated Seasonal High Water Level

4.0 FOUNDATION EVALUATION

4.1 General Information

4.2 Precast Concrete Driven Piles

4.2.1 Axial Capacity of Concrete PSC Driven Piles

4.2.2 Concrete PSC Driven Pile Group Action

4.2.3 Settlement

4.2.4 Lateral Stability of Concrete PSC Driven Piles

4.2.5 Downdrag

4.2.6 Recommended Structure Quantities (455 Pay Item)

4.3 Scour Considerations

4.4 Protection of Existing Structures

5.0 SHEET PILE WALLS

5.1 Construction Considerations

6.0 ENVIORNMENTAL CLASSIFICATION

7.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A USGS Topographic Survey & USDA Soil Survey Map

Report of Core Borings

APPENDIX B Summary of USDA Soil Survey – Table 1

Summary of Laboratory Test Results – Table 2 Summary of Corrosion Test Results – Table 3 Pile Data Table – Table 4 Surface Sediment Grain Size Analysis Curve

APPENDIX C Driven Pile Capacity Curves

APPENDIX D FB-MultiPier Soil Parameters

APPENDIX E FB-Deep Analysis and Output – Driven Piles Pile Group Settlement Sheet Pile Wall Soil Parameters Global Stability Analysis – Sheet Pile Walls

APPENDIX F FHWA Checklist

1 | P a g e

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF WORK

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project site is located along Ridgemoor Boulevard over Brooker Creek in Pinellas County, Florida as shown in Appendix A. The existing 2 lane four span bridge structure (Bridge No. 154153) will be replaced by a new 2 lane bridge structure (Bridge No. 154572) with two 12 feet wide traffic lanes, a 5-foot barrier protected sidewalk on the north side, 8-foot minimum shoulder, and an approximately 6 to 10 feet barrier protected sidewalk or a 12-foot multiuse trail on the south side. The proposed bridge structure will comprise of two spans with the west span being 58 by 73 feet and the east span being 58 by 61 feet. Approach slabs approximately 30 feet in length are proposed at the beginning and ending of the proposed structure. We understand Micheal Baker International has selected 24-inch Square Concrete Piles as the bridge foundation system. Phased construction is proposed for the bridge structure.

During the initial phase of the project, two bridge configurations were considered. The two configurations consisted of a two-span, three-bent bridge and a three-span, four-bent bridge. Our boring locations were selected based on the three-span, four-bent bridge configuration and placed within the initially proposed bridge limits. After the completion of the drilling program, the two-span, three-bent layout was selected as the final configuration of the proposed bridge.

The abutment of the existing bridge structure is lined with retaining walls. It is our understanding that the proposed bridge replacement abutment will also be lined with sheet pile walls. In addition, temporary sheet pile walls are proposed for the phased construction of the bridge structure.

This report presents our analyses and recommendations for the proposed bridge structure including our understanding of the project, a review of existing subsurface information, an outline of our exploratory procedures, summary of field and laboratory data obtained as well as our recommendations for site preparation, design and construction.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of our geotechnical study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at the project site. The subsurface materials encountered were evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the following items were formulated:

General location and description of potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings which may have an impact on the proposed project.

Identification of the existing groundwater levels.

Geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction.

The following services were performed to achieve the above-outlined objectives:

2 | P a g e

Reviewed published topographic and soils information from the United States

Geological Survey (USGS) and the ‘Soil Survey of Pinellas County, Florida’ published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service

(SCS).

Requested utility location services from Sunshine811.

Provided Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) in accordance with Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) Standard indices.

Performed a total of four (4) Standard penetration Test (SPT) borings extending to approximate depths between 100 to 120 feet below the existing grade.

o Performed two (2) SPT borings within the existing pavement area, extending to depths of approximately 100 to 112.5 feet below existing pavement grades.

Samples were collected, and resistances measured in the SPT borings at approximate intervals of two feet for the top 16 feet, and 2.5 feet, thereafter.

o Performed two (2) SPT borings south of the existing bridge in Brooker Creek, extending to depths of approximately 110 to 120 feet below existing grades.

Samples were collected, and resistances measured in the SPT borings at approximate intervals of two feet for the top 16 feet, and 2.5 feet, thereafter.

Collected a grab sample from the Brooker Creek streambed materials to assist in the scour analysis.

Visually classified and stratified soil samples in the laboratory using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Performed a laboratory testing program consisting of natural moisture content tests, a full sieve gradation test, -200 wash gradations, and Atterberg Limits Tests to verify the engineer’s visual classifications.

Performed pH, chlorides, sulfates, and resistivity testing, to determine the environmental classification of the existing soil and Brooker Creek water samples.

Reported the results of the field exploration and engineering analysis in a written report, signed and sealed by a professional engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering.

3 | P a g e

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION & LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

We performed four (4) SPT borings to explore the subsurface conditions encountered at the proposed bridge replacement site. The borings extended to depths of approximately 100 to 120 feet below existing pavement grades and the existing ground surface. The horizontal and vertical locations of the borings are shown on the Report of Core Borings Sheets in Appendix A. The boring locations were determined by hand-held GPS in the field with an accuracy of approximately +/-10 feet. The boring locations were selected based on the four bent bridge configuration that was initially considered. The boring locations were submitted to and approved by Michael Baker. Underground utility clearances were coordinated by AREHNA and updated, as needed. The boring locations were painted and staked in the field and subsequently surveyed by the project surveyor, Element Engineering, Inc.

SPT borings BB-01 and BB-04 were performed in the existing pavement at the proposed end bent locations. Boring BB-02 was performed near the proposed intermediate bent 2 (4 bent configuration) and boring BB-03 near proposed intermediate bent 3 (4 bent configuration). Due to drill rig access limitations (rising creek water level and soft soils at the ground surface) and utility conflicts, borings BB-02 and BB- 03 were offset to the southwest and southeast, respectively, at locations outside and to the south of the proposed bridge limits. Boring BB-02 was performed approximately 60 feet to the southwest of intermediate bent 2 (selected 3 bent configuration). Boring BB-03 was performed approximately 45 feet to the southeast of intermediate bent 2 (selected 3 bent configuration).

Borings BB-01 and BB-04 were performed with the use of a CME-45 Truck Mounted Drill Rig, equipped with an automatic hammer. Boring BB-02 was performed with a specialized D50 “Mud Bug” Mounted drill rig, equipped with an automatic hammer. Due to truck mounted drill rig inaccessibility at boring location BB-03, a specialized D50 Track Mounted drill rig, equipped with a safety hammer was used to perform this boring. The automatic hammer D50 “Mud Bug” used at boring BB-02 was unavailable when BB-03 was performed. Bentonite “Mud” drilling procedures were performed with 3-inch ID casing. Samples were collected and SPT resistances measured at approximate intervals of two feet for the top 16 feet and 2.5 feet, thereafter. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1586, entitled “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.” Representative samples from the borings were sealed in glass jars, labeled and transferred to AREHNA’s office for appropriate classification by a geotechnical engineer. Upon completion, boreholes were backfilled with cement grout and left level with the surrounding grade. The existing pavement at the end bent borings was repaired using asphalt cold patch and left level with the surrounding pavement.

The Report of Core Boring Sheets in Appendix A provide a boring location site plan showing the relationship of existing features to the exploration borings.

4 | P a g e

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Our laboratory testing program included natural moisture content tests (ASTM D-2974), a full sieve gradation (ASTM D-422), -200 wash gradations (ASTM D1140-17) and Atterberg Limits (ASTM D-4318). To determine the environmental classification of representative soil and Brooker Creek water samples, we performed pH, chlorides, sulfates, and resistivity testing. The results of these tests are summarized on Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix B.

5 | P a g e

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

The topographic survey map published by the United States Geological Survey was reviewed for ground surface features at the project location (Appendix A). Based on this review, the pre-developed ground surface elevation at the project site is approximately +10 to +20 feet North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

3.2 USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE DATA

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey map for the project area is attached in Appendix A. This survey indicates that the soils at the bridge site consist of Anclote fine sand, depressional (3), Basinger fine sand-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (6), and Myakka soils and Urban land (17). A summary of the USDA soil types is provided on Table 1 in Appendix B.

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Pictorial representations of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are shown on the Report of Core Boring Sheets in Appendix A. These profiles and the following soil conditions highlight the general subsurface stratification. The Report of Core Borings in Appendix A should be consulted for a detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. When reviewing the boring record and the subsurface profiles, it should be understood that soil conditions may vary between, and away from, the boring locations.

Table 3.3.1. Summary Generalized Subsurface Conditions

Depth (feet)

Approximate Elevations

(Feet, NAVD 88) Material Description

Boring BB-01 (End Bent 1)

0 50.5 19.4 -31 Loose to medium dense fine sand (SP), slightly silty fine sand (SP-SM), and clayey fine sand (SC) with varying amounts of shell.

50.5 53 -31 -33.5 Stiff clayey silt (MH)

53 60.5 -33.5 -41 Very loose to loose silty sand (SM) with varying amounts of cemented sand

6 | P a g e

Depth (feet)

Approximate Elevations

(Feet, NAVD 88) Material Description

60.5 80.5 -41 -61 Very stiff to hard Limestone with varying amounts of clay

80.5 83 -61 -63.5 Hard silty clay (CH) with limestone

83 100 -63.5 -80.6 Hard limestone

Boring BB-02 (Intermediate Bent 2)

0 55 9.9 -45.1 Loose to dense fine sand (SP), slightly silty fine sand (SP-SM), clayey silty fine sand (SC-SM/SM), and clayey fine sand (SC)

55 71.5 -45.1 -61.6 Soft to very hard limestone

71.5 72.5 -61.6 -62.6 Hard silty clay (CL) with some limestone

72.5 80 -62.6 -70.1 Hard limestone

80 89 -70.1 -79.1 Very loose to loose silty fine sand (SM)

89 90 -79.1 -80.1 Soft silt (MH)

90 97.5 -80.1 -87.6 Very loose to loose fine sand (SP)

97.5 120 -87.6 -110.1 Stiff to hard limestone

Boring BB-03 (Intermediate Bent 2)

0 50.5 9.8 -40.7 Medium dense to very dense fine sand (SP) and slightly silty fine sand (SP-SM) with varying amounts of shell

7 | P a g e

Depth (feet)

Approximate Elevations

(Feet, NAVD 88) Material Description

50.5 53 -40.7 -43.2 Soft to firm clay (CH)

53 70.5 -43.2 -60.7 Loose medium dense clayey fine sand (SC), silty fine sand (SM) and clayey silty fine sand (SC-SM) with varying amounts of cemented pieces

70.5 75.5 -60.7 -65.7 Firm clayey limestone

75.5 80.5 -65.7 -70.7 Loose clayey fine sand (SC)

80.5 83 -70.7 -73.2 Stiff clay (CH)

83 98 -73.2 -88.2 Very hard limestone

98 99.5 -88.2 -89.7 Medium dens silty fine sand (SM)

99.5 110 -89.7 -100.2 Hard to very hard limestone

Boring BB-04 (End Bent 3)

0 65.5 19.5 -46.6 Very Loose to very dense fine sand (SP), slightly silty fine sand (SP-SM), silty fine sand (SM), and clayey fine sand (SC) with varying amounts of shell

65.5 112.5 -46.6 --93.0 Soft to hard limestone with varying amounts of clay

3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The groundwater level was encountered at depths of 11 to 14.5 feet (Approximate Elevation 8.5 to 4.9 feet NAVD 88) below the existing ground surface in the borings performed along end bents 1 and 3. The groundwater level was encountered at depths of 0.8 to 1.2 feet (Approximate Elevation 9.1 to 8.6 feet NAVD

88) in the intermediate bent borings BB-02 and BB-03, respectively.

8 | P a g e

Fluctuation in groundwater levels should be expected due to seasonal climatic changes, construction activity, rainfall variations, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors such as the level of the water in Brooker Creek. Since groundwater level variations are anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should assume that variations will occur.

3.5 ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL

The Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) is the highest average depth of soil saturation during the wet season in a normal year (South West Florida Water Management District, SWFMD). Based on SWFWMD guidelines, the procedures for estimating SHWT elevations include an examination of county soil surveys and field verification by observation and identification of indicators within the soil profiles.

A review of the Pinellas County Soil Survey indicates that the project bridge site is located within an area classified as Anclote fine sand, depressional (3), Basinger fine sand-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (6), and Myakka soils and Urban land (17). The Soil Survey estimated seasonal high water level is noted as 0.0, 0.3 to 1.5, and 0.5 to 1.5 feet below natural grades, respectively, for the three encountered soil units.

This area has been built-up for the existing bridge structure; therefore, natural seasonal high soil indicators were not present in the borings performed. It is anticipated the water levels in this area will be influenced by the water level in Brooker Creek.

9 | P a g e

4.0 FOUNDATION EVALUATION

4.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

As indicated by Michael Baker International, 24-inch square precast concrete piles (PSC) have been selected as the foundation system to support the proposed bridge structure. Our analysis is based upon the previously presented project information, as well as the field and laboratory test data obtained during this geotechnical exploration. In our evaluation for the subject project, we have addressed the following geotechnical design and construction considerations:

Soil and water corrosion potential and the environmental classification of the substructure and superstructure.

Factored Design Uplift data is not currently available and was not considered in the axial analyses.

The table below provides furnished foundation information from Michael Baker International.

Table 4.1.1 Furnished Foundation Information

Bent No.

Pile Size

(inches)

Factored Design Load

(tons)

Minimum Tip Elevation

(ft, NAVD 88)

100-Year Scour

Elevation (ft, NAVD 88)

Highest Pile Cut-Off

Elevation (ft, NAVD 88)

Ridgemoor Blvd. Bridge over Brooker Creek End Bent 1 24 148 -10 N/A 15.6 Int. Bent 2 24 220 -45 -12.96 15.1 End Bent 3 24 148 -10 N/A 15.9

4.2 PRECAST CONCRETE DRIVEN PILES

Prestressed concrete piles are a widely used and proven foundation system in Central and South Florida.

For the proposed bridge, we evaluated 24-inch square prestressed concrete (PSC) piles for support of the proposed bridge foundation system.

4.2.1 Axial Capacity of Concrete PSC Driven Piles

To evaluate the pile compression capacities, a static analysis using the design methodology presented in Research Bulletin 121 (RB-121) developed by Professor J.H. Schmertmann, was performed. A computerized version of this method, entitled FB-Deep (v.2.05), was used. This method generates pile capacities through empirical correlations between Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values and unit end bearing and side friction values for four general material types.

Typically, the Estimated Davisson Capacity (defined failure load) from FB-Deep is taken as the unfactored pile resistance and is calculated as the sum of the Ultimate Side Friction plus the

10 | P a g e

Mobilized End Bearing (one-third of the ultimate end bearing). For SPT N-values of less than 3 or greater than 60 blows per foot, the methodology truncates the values to 0 and 60, respectively, for sand and 0 and 100 for rock. For our FB-Deep analysis, we assumed predrilled pile holes will be constructed to assist in the initiation of the pile driving operations. To account for predrilling in our FB-Deep analysis, we did not include the soils within the anticipated predrill zone of the end bent piles (upper 10 feet) and intermediate bent piles (upper 5 feet). FB-Deep was executed for each boring from the existing ground surface.

Intermediate bent boring BB-03 encountered zones of very dense sandy soils at a depth of up to approximately 28 feet below existing grade (approximately elevation -18 feet, NAVD 88).

Preforming is recommended at the intermediate bent piles to elevation -19 feet, NAVD 88 to mitigate against potential driving issues due to very dense shallow soils and possible shallow debris from the existing bridge structure. To model preforming in our intermediate bent FB-Deep analyses, we reduced the SPT N-values by 50 percent within the preformed zone using a maximum N-value of 8 blows per foot.

It is our understanding that temporary sheet pile walls are proposed at the bridge abutments during the phased construction. The removal of these walls will have a “relaxation” effect on the soils at the end bent piles which may affect the pile capacity. To analyze this effect, weaker soils were considered at the end bent borings (BB-01 and BB-04) by modeling preforming in the analysis to an elevation of 2 feet, NAVD 88 (the tip elevation of the Temporary Sheet Pile Walls).

The Nominal Bearing Resistance (NBR) to be achieved in the field during pile installation is calculated from the following equation:

Nominal Bearing Resistance = Factored Design Load + Net Scour Resistance + Downdrag Load

Where (resistance factor) is 0.75 (100% dynamic testing of the piles is performed).

The maximum pile driving resistances for 24-inch PSC piles as per the Structure Design Guidelines (SDG) is 450 tons. The FB-Deep analyses indicate that the maximum pile driving resistances for the 24-inch PSC piles were not exceeded. The following table presents the estimated tip elevations at which the maximum Nominal Bearing Resistances were achieved within the borings performed.

11 | P a g e

Table 4.2.1

BENT

NO.

Reference Boring Pile Size (in)

Phi Factor

(φ)

Nominal Bearing

Resistance

NBR(3)

(tons)

Factored Design Load

(tons)

Minimum Tip Elevation(1)

(ft, NAVD 88)

Downdrag (tons)

Net Scour Resistance

(tons)

Test Pile

Length (ft)

Anticipated Tip

Elevation(2) (ft, NAVD 88) No.

Ground Surface

Elevation (ft, NAVD 88)

Ridgemoor Blvd. Bridge over Brooker Creek End

Bent 1

BB-01 19.5 24 0.75 198 148 -10.0 N/A N/A 76 -43(5)

Int.

Bent 2

BB-03 8.0(4) 24 0.75 294 220 -45.0 N/A 0 101 -71

End Bent 3

BB-04 19.4 24 0.75 198 148 -10.0 N/A N/A 76 -46(6)

(1) The minimum tip elevation (MTE) for the bridge bents represents the shallowest pile tip elevations necessary to satisfy lateral stability requirements and geotechnical considerations to avoid excessive settlement at the bent locations.

(2) The anticipated pile tip elevation from FB-Deep Analyses to achieve NBR based on estimated Davisson Capacity values and assuming 100% of the production piles will be monitored dynamically using a resistance factor of 0.75.

(3) The Estimated Davisson Capacity from FB-Deep > NBR

(4) For the proposed Intermediate Bent 2, the initial 1.8 feet of soil in boring BB-03 was omitted in the analyses to model the Creek mudline elevation of 8 ft, NAVD 88 at the bent location.

(5) The calculated anticipated tip elevation (FB-Deep) for End Bent 1 was -38 feet, NAVD 88. This was extended to denser/harder soils at -43 feet, NAVD 88.

(6) The calculated anticipated tip elevation (FB-Deep) for End Bent 3 was -9 feet, NAVD 88. This was extended below the minimum tip elevation to denser/harder soils (top of the limestone stratum) at -46 feet, NAVD 88.

The graphical and tabular outputs from our FB-Deep analyses are presented in Appendices C and E, respectively.

4.2.2 Concrete PSC Driven Pile Group Action

No reduction of the individual axial compression pile capacity will be required if driven piles are spaced center-to-center at 3 times their width or greater. The pile caps usually contribute to the overall bearing capacity of the pile group provided they are supported on competent soil outside the outer perimeter of the group. However, taking credit for this additional capacity is not recommended because of the potential for loss of soil cover at the pile cap.

4.2.3 Settlement

We have performed analyses of the pile group settlement potential for the proposed bridge. We modeled each pile group as an equivalent footing in accordance with Figure 9.44 of FHWA Report No. FHWA-HI-97-013 (Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations – Volume I, 1997). The calculated pile group settlement potential is 1.2 inch or less for EB-1, 1.9 inches for Intermediate Bent 2 and 1.2 inches for EB-3. Pile group settlement calculations are presented in Appendix E.

12 | P a g e

4.2.4 Lateral Stability of Concrete PSC Driven Piles

We have provided geotechnical parameters for use by Michael Baker International in performing lateral load analyses for the driven piles. The Recommended Soil Parameters for FB-MultiPier Analysis are presented in Appendix D. These parameters are based on correlations with SPT N-values.

4.2.5 Downdrag

It is anticipated that the bridge piles will be driven prior to the placement of the approach embankments. Therefore, to minimize the development of the downdrag loads from embankment fill, the portion of the pile within the embankment should be provided within a bitumen coating or double wrap of polyethylene sheeting according to Section 459 of the FDOT Specifications. Downdrag loads are not anticipated for the end bent piles. In addition, downdrag loads on the piles at the intermediate bent location are not anticipated so long as filling operations do not occur above the existing grade.

Pile downdrag calculations are presented in Appendix E (Pile Group Settlement).

4.2.6 Recommended Structure Quantities (455 Pay Item)

To assist the structural team in determining the structure quantities for the pile installation program, the FDOT Section 455 Pay Items and quantities are summarized in Table 4.2.6.1 below:

4.2.6.1 Recommended Structure Quantities (455 Pay Items)

Pay Item No.

Description

Units of

Measure Quantity

455-15-15 Preformed Pile Holes, 30” to 34” Drill/Punch Size LF 180

455-20-1 Pile Inspection, Driven Pile EA 18

455-34-5 Prestressed Concrete Piling, 24” SQ LF 1290

455-137 Load Test (Dynamic), Data Collection and Analysis EA 24

455-137-2 Load Test (Dynamic), Verification Test EA 6

455-143-5 Test Piles – Prestressed Concrete (24” SQ) LF 258

455-155 Pile Redrive EA 6

13 | P a g e

4.3 SCOUR CONSIDERATIONS

Scour information provided by Michael Baker International is summarized in the following table:

Table 4.6.1 Scour Information

Bent No.

100-Year Scour

Elevation (ft, NAVD 88)

Int. Bent 2 -12.96

A sample of the Brooker Creek streambed material was obtained from the collected grab sample at the south side center of the bridge. A Gradation analysis was performed on the sample for the determination of the median particle diameter, D50, to assist with the scour analyses. The D50 is 0.163mm. The gradation curve is provided with the Laboratory Test Results in Appendix B.

4.4 PROTECTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

Protection of existing structures and nearby utilities during construction activities, including survey and monitoring for settlement should be in accordance with FDOT Section 108 of the Specifications. Monitoring for all structures located at each property inclusive of residential building structures, associated in-ground swimming pools, and associated deck areas and all other improvements on listed property. The Department will make the final determination of the existing structures to be monitored in accordance with FDOT Section

307.5 of the FDM. We recommend the contractor inspect and survey the condition of the existing structures, pre and post construction, in accordance with Section 108 of the Specifications for excavation, construction of the foundations for the planned bridge replacement.

It should be noted that the proposed bridge will be constructed in phases where ongoing construction will be performed adjacent to the existing bridge structure. We recommend the contractor monitor and record continuously vibration levels during the operation of any equipment causing vibrations inclusive of pile driving, sheet pile and casing installation, and embankment and asphalt compaction for any adjacent existing structures in accordance with Section 108 of the Specifications. The recommendations should include thresholds for vibration and settlement monitoring.

A review of aerial information in the vicinity of the proposed bridge improvements indicates no existing residential or commercial building structures within an approximate 400 feet radius. However, if any new building structures are constructed within a radius of approximately 250 feet prior to bridge construction, we recommend the contractor monitor and record continuously vibration levels during the operation of any equipment causing vibrations inclusive of pile driving, sheet pile and casing installation, and embankment and asphalt compaction for any adjacent existing structures in accordance with Section 108 of the Specifications. The recommendations should include thresholds for vibration and settlement monitoring.

14 | P a g e

5.0 SHEET PILE WALLS

5.1 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Two (2) permanent steel sheet pile walls (W-1 and W-2) are proposed along the proposed bridge abutments. In addition, two (2) temporary sheet pile walls (TW-1 and TW-2) are proposed for the phased construction of the bridge. Sheet pile wall data provided by Michael Baker are summarized in the following table:

Table 5.1.1 Furnished Sheet Pile Retaining Wall Information

General Location

Approx. Begin Wall

Station

Approx. End Wall

Station

Approx.

Overall

Wall Length (feet)

Approx.

Wall

Height (feet)

Approx.

Water

Elevation (feet, NAVD

88)

Minimum Tip Elevation

(feet, NAVD 88)

Front Back

W-1 587+99.75 (RT) 587+95.68 (LT) 101 37 10.0 10.0 -20

W-2 589+25.34 (RT) 589+21.52 (RT) 104 32 10.0 10.0 -15

TW-1 587+69.55 (RT) 588+00.46 (RT) 31 18 10.0 10.0 2

TW-2 589+21.46 (RT) 589+51.38 (RT) 30 18 10.0 10.0 2

The recommended soil parameters information for the proposed walls are presented in Appendix E. These parameters are based on the correlations with SPT N-values. The design of the sheet pile walls was provided by others. In order to evaluate the global stability of the proposed permanent walls W-1 and W- 2, the software ReSSA 3.0 was used with the wall data provided in the above table. A factor of safety of approximately 5 was calculated for both cases. The results of the global stability analyses are also presented in Appendix E.

Several of the bridge borings encountered dense to very dense sandy soils to depths of 28 to approximately 30 feet below existing grades. We recommend that the following note be included in the project plans:

Please note, difficult sheet pile installation should be anticipated due to the presence of very dense sandy soils at varying depths. Special equipment and breaking tools may be required to excavate. Steps shall be taken to mitigate difficult sheet pile installation and minimize vibrations through the use of specialized equipment and/or procedures.

15 | P a g e

6.0 ENVIORNMENTAL CLASSIFICATION

Corrosion parameter tests were performed by AREHNA on select water and soil samples obtained from the bridge site. The results are provided on Table 3 in Appendix B. According to these test results, the substructure environmental classification is moderately aggressive for steel (pH=6.5 – 6.9, Resistivity = 1,600- 4,000 OHMS-CM) and concrete (Resistivity = 1,600 OHMS-CM). The superstructure environmental classification is slightly aggressive.

16 | P a g e

7.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions may be different from those at specific boring locations and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process itself may alter soil conditions. AREHNA is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on the data presented in this report.

The assessment of site environmental conditions or the presence of contaminants in the soil, rock, surface water or groundwater of the site was beyond the scope of this exploration. Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of Michael Baker International and FDOT.

This report was prepared exclusively for Michael Baker International and FDOT by AREHNA. The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AREHNA’s services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by Michael Baker International and FDOT only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Michael Baker International and FDOT. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

APPENDIX A

USGS Topographic Survey and USDA Soil Survey Maps

Report of Core Borings

$DATE$$USER$ $FILE$$TIME$

445437-1-52-01 PINELLAS

ROAD NO. FINANCIAL PROJECT IDCOUNTY

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION

NO.

SHEETSTATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

USDA & USGS VICINITY MAPS

N N

USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Feet

0 250 1000

Feet

0 250

SECTION:

RANGE:

TOWNSHIP:

SECTION:

RANGE:

TOWNSHIP:

APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION

16 E

27 S

16 E

27 S

5012 W. LEMON STREET

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609

KIRK M. EASTMAN, P.E.

P.E. LICENSE NUMBER 50733

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

REFERENCE: USDA SOIL SURVEY OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA REFERENCE: "OLDSMAR, FLORIDA" USGS QUADRANGLE MAP

N

Bore #

Reference

Station

Offset

Latitude

Longitude

Elevation

Vertical Datum

Date

Driller

Hammer

Rig

BB-01

CL RIDGEMOOR

587+94

6 LT

28.099362

-82.6862611

19.4'

NAVD88

4/20/2023

M. SEIBERT

Auto

CME 45

5" ASPHALT, 10" CONCRETE, 8" LIMEROCK BASE

DARK BROWN TO BROWN TO GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN TO LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN TO GRAY SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

DARK BROWN TO BROWN TO GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN TO LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND (SP)

GRAY TO BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

GRAY TO BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BLUE CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

DARK BROWN TO BROWN CLAYEY SILT (MH)

DARK BROWN TO BROWN TO GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH CEMENTED SAND (SM)

BROWN TO GREEN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY LIMESTONE

LIGHT BROWN WEATHERED LIMESTONE

LIMESTONE WITH CEMENTED CLAY

GRAY TO GREEN SILTY CLAY WITH LIMESTONE (CH)

LIGHT BROWN LIMESTONE

Boring Terminated at Elev. -80.6ft

HA

HA

HA

50/4

50/5

50/4

50/3

50/0

50/3

50/3

50/1

50/0

50/0

50/1

50/2

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

F

E E

T N

A V

D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(F E

E T

, N A

V D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

LEGEND

SAND

LIMESTONE

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488)

GROUP SYMBOL AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW

GROUNDWATER TABLE

SP

NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE

SPT VALUE FOR 12 INCHES OF PENETRATION

(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).

N

AREHNA PROJECT NO. B-21-065.03

SAFETY HAMMER

MEDIUM DENSE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR MATERIALS-

SPT N-VALUE

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

GREATER THAN 40

3 to 8

16 to 30

8 to 15

LESS THAN 1

3 to 6

1 to 3

6 to 12

24 to 40

8 to 24

12 to 24

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

VERY SOFT

4 to 8

2 to 4

RELATIVE DENSITY

LOOSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

30 to 50

10 to 30

4 to 10

SPT N-VALUE

LESS THAN 2

VERY LOOSE

HARD GREATER THAN 30

LESS THAN 4

GREATER THAN 50

SILTY SAND

APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION

HAND AUGERHA

ASPHALT

NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR 4 INCHES OF PENETRATION50/4

CLAYEY SAND

SILT

CLAY

WEATHERED LIMESTONE

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD AND HAMMER

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD

WH

WR

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (%)

CASING

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FINES PASSING THE #200 STANDARD SIEVE (%)

w%

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

LL

PI

SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

(pH = 6.5-6.9, RESISTIVITY = 1,600-4,000 OHMS-CM)

STEEL: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

(RESISTIVITY = 1,600 OHMS-CM)

CONCRETE: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

SUPERSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

6.9

84 PPM

15 PPM

1,600 OHMS-CM

pH

SULFATES

CHLORIDES

RESISTIVITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION:

TEST RESULTS: SOIL

6.5

0 PPM

55 PPM

4,000 OHMS-CM

WATER

66 67

587 588 589 590

Feet

100200

N

RIDGEMOOR BLVD

BB-01

BB-02

BB-03

BB-04

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION

NO.

SHEETSTATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ROAD NO. FINANCIAL PROJECT IDCOUNTY

445437-1-52-01

PINELLAS

/1 /2

D

A r e h n a \P r o je c ts

\2

\B

.0

R id g e m o o r B r id g e \B

B o r in g

.d g n

:2

:0

P

M

33609 FL, TAMPA

5012 W. LEMON STREET

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

50733LICENSE NUMBER:

KIRK M. EASTMAN, P.E.

T H

E O

F F

IC

IA

L R

E C

O R

D O

F T

H

IS

S H

E E

T I

S T

H E

E L

E C

T R

O N

IC

F

IL

E

D

IG

IT

A

L L

Y S

IG

N

E D

A N

D S

E A

L E

D U

N D

E R

R U

L E

G

-2

.0

F

.A .C

ENGINEER OF RECORD

(1 of 4)

Report of Core Borings

B1-8

-200 = 6 w% = 20

Sample @ 14' to 16'

-200 = 10 w% = 22

Sample @ 36' to 37.5'

-200 = 33 w% = 33

Sample @ 48.5' to 50'

-200 = 45 w% = 42

Sample @ 58.5' to 60'

BRIDGE NO. 154572

Reference

Station

Offset

Latitude

Longitude

Elevation

Vertical Datum

Date

Driller

Hammer

Rig

BB-02

CL RIDGEMOOR

588+18

69 RT

28.0991471

-82.6862881

9.9'

NAVD88

8/22/2023

ETHAN

Auto

D50

DARK BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE ROOTS (SP-SM)

BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

GRAY TO BROWN CLAYEY SILTY FINE SAND (SC-SM)

GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

BLUE TO GREEN TO GRAY TO BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

BROWN CLAYEY, SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT GRAY CLAYEY LIMESTONE

LIGHT BROWN LIMESTONE

GREEN SILTY CLAY WITH SOME LIMESTONE (CL)

LIGHT BROWN TO LIGHT GRAY LIMESTONE

GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH LIMESTONE (SM)

GREEN TO GRAY TO BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN SILT (MH)

BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

LIGHT GRAY LIMESTONE WITH SOME SILT

LIGHT BROWN LIMESTONE

LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY LIMESTONE

LIGHT BROWN LIMESTONE

Boring Terminated at Elev. -110.1ft

Casing Length 120ft

50/6

50/5

50/6

WH

50/5

50/4

50/4

50/1

50/0

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

F

E E

T N

A V

D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

-110

-115

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(F E

E T

, N A

V D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

-110

-115

LEGEND

SAND

LIMESTONE

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488)

GROUP SYMBOL AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW

GROUNDWATER TABLE

SP

NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE

SPT VALUE FOR 12 INCHES OF PENETRATION

(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).

N

AREHNA PROJECT NO. B-21-065.03

SAFETY HAMMER

MEDIUM DENSE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR MATERIALS-

SPT N-VALUE

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

GREATER THAN 40

3 to 8

16 to 30

8 to 15

LESS THAN 1

3 to 6

1 to 3

6 to 12

24 to 40

8 to 24

12 to 24

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

VERY SOFT

4 to 8

2 to 4

RELATIVE DENSITY

LOOSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

30 to 50

10 to 30

4 to 10

SPT N-VALUE

LESS THAN 2

VERY LOOSE

HARD GREATER THAN 30

LESS THAN 4

GREATER THAN 50

SILTY SAND

APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION

HAND AUGERHA

ASPHALT

NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR 4 INCHES OF PENETRATION50/4

CLAYEY SAND

SILT

CLAY

WEATHERED LIMESTONE

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD AND HAMMER

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD

WH

WR

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (%)

CASING

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FINES PASSING THE #200 STANDARD SIEVE (%)

w%

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

LL

PI

SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

(pH = 6.5-6.9, RESISTIVITY = 1,600-4,000 OHMS-CM)

STEEL: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

(RESISTIVITY = 1,600 OHMS-CM)

CONCRETE: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

SUPERSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

6.9

84 PPM

15 PPM

1,600 OHMS-CM

pH

SULFATES

CHLORIDES

RESISTIVITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION:

TEST RESULTS: SOIL

6.5

0 PPM

55 PPM

4,000 OHMS-CM

WATER

66 67

587 588 589 590

Feet

100200

N

RIDGEMOOR BLVD

BB-01

BB-02

BB-03

BB-04

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION

NO.

SHEETSTATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

/1 /2

D

A r e h n a \P r o je c ts

\2

\B

.0

R id g e m o o r B r id g e \B

B o r in g

.d g n

:2

:1

P

M

33609 FL, TAMPA

5012 W. LEMON STREET

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

50733LICENSE NUMBER:

KIRK M. EASTMAN, P.E.

T H

E O

F F

IC

IA

L R

E C

O R

D O

F T

H

IS

S H

E E

T I

S T

H E

E L

E C

T R

O N

IC

F

IL

E

D

IG

IT

A

L L

Y S

IG

N

E D

A N

D S

E A

L E

D U

N D

E R

R U

L E

G

-2

.0

F

.A .C

ENGINEER OF RECORD

(2 of 4)

Report of Core Borings

B1-9

-200 = 2 w% = 22

Sample @ 12' to 14'

-200 = 6 w% = 22

Sample @ 23.5' to 25'

-200 = 20 w% = 19

Sample @ 31' to 32.5'

LL = 36

PI = 17

-200 = 25 w% = 26

Sample @ 46' to 47.5'

LL = 42

PI = 16

-200 = 45 w% = 35

Sample @ 51' to 52.5'

-200 = 35 w% = 68

Sample @ 83.5' to 85'

-200 = 2 w% = 25

Sample @ 96' to 97.5'

Reference

Station

Offset

Latitude

Longitude

Elevation

Vertical Datum

Date

Driller

Hammer

Rig

BB-03

CL RIDGEMOOR

588+98

59 RT

28.0990869

-82.6860355

9.8'

NAVD88

7/20/2023

ETHAN

SAFETY

D50

BROWN SAND AND WOOD DEBRIS (SP)

BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN TO LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN SAND (SP)

GRAY TO BLUE TO LIGHT BROWN CLAY (CH)

DARK GRAY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

DARK GRAY TO BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CEMENTED PIECES (SC-SM)

DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS (SM)

LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY LIMESTONE

LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

BLUE TO GRAY CLAY (CH)

LIGHT BROWN LIMESTONE

BLUE TO GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN LIMESTONE

Boring Terminated at Elev. -100.2ft

Casing Length 70ft

HA

HA

HA

50/4

50/6

50/0

50/1

50/4

50/1

50/5

50/3

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

F

E E

T N

A V

D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

-110

-115

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(F E

E T

, N A

V D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

-110

-115

LEGEND

SAND

LIMESTONE

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488)

GROUP SYMBOL AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW

GROUNDWATER TABLE

SP

NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE

SPT VALUE FOR 12 INCHES OF PENETRATION

(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).

N

AREHNA PROJECT NO. B-21-065.03

SAFETY HAMMER

MEDIUM DENSE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR MATERIALS-

SPT N-VALUE

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

GREATER THAN 40

3 to 8

16 to 30

8 to 15

LESS THAN 1

3 to 6

1 to 3

6 to 12

24 to 40

8 to 24

12 to 24

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

VERY SOFT

4 to 8

2 to 4

RELATIVE DENSITY

LOOSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

30 to 50

10 to 30

4 to 10

SPT N-VALUE

LESS THAN 2

VERY LOOSE

HARD GREATER THAN 30

LESS THAN 4

GREATER THAN 50

SILTY SAND

APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION

HAND AUGERHA

ASPHALT

NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR 4 INCHES OF PENETRATION50/4

CLAYEY SAND

SILT

CLAY

WEATHERED LIMESTONE

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD AND HAMMER

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD

WH

WR

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (%)

CASING

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FINES PASSING THE #200 STANDARD SIEVE (%)

w%

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

LL

PI

SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

(pH = 6.5-6.9, RESISTIVITY = 1,600-4,000 OHMS-CM)

STEEL: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

(RESISTIVITY = 1,600 OHMS-CM)

CONCRETE: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

SUPERSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

6.9

84 PPM

15 PPM

1,600 OHMS-CM

pH

SULFATES

CHLORIDES

RESISTIVITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION:

TEST RESULTS: SOIL

6.5

0 PPM

55 PPM

4,000 OHMS-CM

WATER

66 67

587 588 589 590

Feet

100200

N

RIDGEMOOR BLVD

BB-01

BB-02

BB-03

BB-04

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION

NO.

SHEETSTATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

/1 /2

D

A r e h n a \P r o je c ts

\2

\B

.0

R id g e m o o r B r id g e \B

B o r in g

.d g n

:2

:1

P

M

33609 FL, TAMPA

5012 W. LEMON STREET

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

50733LICENSE NUMBER:

KIRK M. EASTMAN, P.E.

T H

E O

F F

IC

IA

L R

E C

O R

D O

F T

H

IS

S H

E E

T I

S T

H E

E L

E C

T R

O N

IC

F

IL

E

D

IG

IT

A

L L

Y S

IG

N

E D

A N

D S

E A

L E

D U

N D

E R

R U

L E

G

-2

.0

F

.A .C

ENGINEER OF RECORD

(3 of 4)

Report of Core Borings

B1-10

-200 = 4 w% = 23

Sample @ 10' to 12'

-200 = 6 w% = 23

Sample @ 18.5' to 20'

-200 = 6 w% = 22

Sample @ 41' to 42.5'

LL = 29

PI = 14

-200 = 22 w% = 35

Sample @ 53.5' to 55'

-200 = 18 w% = 33

Sample @ 58.5' to 60'

LL = 43

PI = 25

-200 = 28 w% = 42

Sample @ 76' to 77.5'

Reference

Station

Offset

Latitude

Longitude

Elevation

Vertical Datum

Date

Driller

Hammer

Rig

BB-04

CL RIDGEMOOR

589+28

4 LT

28.0992203

-82.6858811

19.5'

NAVD88

4/24/2023

M. SEIBERT

Auto

CME 45

4.5" ASPHALT, 8" CONCRETE, 12" LIMEROCK BASE

DARK BROWN TO BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH TREE BARK (SP)

BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

LIGHT BROWN TO LIGHT GRAY FINE SAND (SP)

GRAY TO BROWN SLIGHTLY SILTY FINE SAND (SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN TO ORANGE CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

GRAY TO BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH FEW SHELL (SM)

GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

GRAY TO BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY LIMESTONE

Boring Terminated at Elev. -93ft

Casing Length 100ft

HA

50/5

50/1

50/1

WR

50/3

50/2

50/3

50/5

100%

100%

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

(F E

E T

, N A

V D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

F

E E

T N

A V

D

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95

-100

-105

LEGEND

SAND

LIMESTONE

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488)

GROUP SYMBOL AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW

GROUNDWATER TABLE

SP

NUMBERS TO THE LEFT OF BORINGS INDICATE

SPT VALUE FOR 12 INCHES OF PENETRATION

(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).

N

AREHNA PROJECT NO. B-21-065.03

SAFETY HAMMER

MEDIUM DENSE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR MATERIALS-

SPT N-VALUE

GREATER THAN 24

LESS THAN 3

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

GREATER THAN 40

3 to 8

16 to 30

8 to 15

LESS THAN 1

3 to 6

1 to 3

6 to 12

24 to 40

8 to 24

12 to 24

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

VERY SOFT

4 to 8

2 to 4

RELATIVE DENSITY

LOOSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

30 to 50

10 to 30

4 to 10

SPT N-VALUE

LESS THAN 2

VERY LOOSE

HARD GREATER THAN 30

LESS THAN 4

GREATER THAN 50

SILTY SAND

APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION

HAND AUGERHA

ASPHALT

NUMBER OF BLOWS FOR 4 INCHES OF PENETRATION50/4

CLAYEY SAND

SILT

CLAY

WEATHERED LIMESTONE

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD AND HAMMER

FELL UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD

WH

WR

LOSS OF CIRCULATION OF DRILLING FLUID (%)

CASING

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FINES PASSING THE #200 STANDARD SIEVE (%)

w%

-200

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY INDEX (%)

LL

PI

SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

(pH = 6.5-6.9, RESISTIVITY = 1,600-4,000 OHMS-CM)

STEEL: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

(RESISTIVITY = 1,600 OHMS-CM)

CONCRETE: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE

SUPERSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

SUBSTRUCTURE

6.9

84 PPM

15 PPM

1,600 OHMS-CM

pH

SULFATES

CHLORIDES

RESISTIVITY

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION:

TEST RESULTS: SOIL

6.5

0 PPM

55 PPM

4,000 OHMS-CM

WATER

66 67

587 588 589 590

Feet

100200

N

RIDGEMOOR BLVD

BB-01

BB-02

BB-03

BB-04

DATE DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

DATE DESCRIPTION

NO.

SHEETSTATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

/1 /2

D

A r e h n a \P r o je c ts

\2

\B

.0

R id g e m o o r B r id g e \B

B o r in g

.d g n

:2

:1

P

M

33609 FL, TAMPA

5012 W. LEMON STREET

AREHNA ENGINEERING, INC.

50733LICENSE NUMBER:

KIRK M. EASTMAN, P.E.

T H

E O

F F

IC

IA

L R

E C

O R

D O

F T

H

IS

S H

E E

T I

S T

H E

E L

E C

T R

O N

IC

F

IL

E

D

IG

IT

A

L L

Y S

IG

N

E D

A N

D S

E A

L E

D U

N D

E R

R U

L E

G

-2

.0

F

.A .C

ENGINEER OF RECORD

(4 of 4)

Report of Core Borings

B1-11

-200 = 4 w% = 25

Sample @ 31' to 32.5'

-200 = 8 w% = 23

Sample @ 38.5' to 40'

LL = 46

PI = 17

-200 = 44 w% = 42

Sample @ 61' to 62.5'

LL = 62

PI = 40

-200 = 44 w% = 79

Sample @ 63.5' to 65'

APPENDIX B

Summary of USDA Soil Survey – Table 1

Summary of Laboratory Test Results – Table 2

Summary of Corrosion Test Results – Table 3

Pile Data Table – Table 4

Depth

(feet)

Duration

(months) Kind Steel Concrete

0 - 16 Fine sand A-3, A-2-4 SP, SP-SM

16 -80 Fine sand, sand A-3, A-2-4 SP, SP-SM, SM

0 - 2 Fine sand A-3, A-2-4 SP-SM, SM

2 - 18 Fine sand A-3, A-2-4 SP-SM, SM

18 - 36 Fine sand A-3, A-2-4 SP-SM, SM

36 - 80 Fine sand A-3, A-2-4 SP-SM, SM

0 - 4 Fine sand A-3 SP, SP-SM

4 - 22 Sand, fine sand A-3 SP, SP-SM

22 - 36 Sand, fine sand A-3, A-2-4 SP-SM, SM

36 - 80 Sand, fine sand A-3 SP, SP-SM

Urban Land - - - - - - - - -

*Urban Land consists of areas where most of the soil surface is covered with impervious materials such as highways, parking lots and industrial areas.

Because the soils have been reworked, they are no longer recognized as natural soils and no data is provided.

HighApparentJul - Oct0.3 - 1.5

USDA Soil Type Depth

(inches)

Risk of Corrosion

AASHTO USCS

Seasonal High Groundwater

USDA Soil Description

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF USDA SOIL SURVEY

RIDGEMOOR BRIDGE REPLACMENT - STRUCTURE

AREHNA Project No. B-21-065.03

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

FPID 445437-1-52-01

Anclote fine sand, depressional (3)

Myakka soils and

Urban land (17)

LowHighApparentJun - Dec0.0

HighHighApparentJun - Nov0.5 - 1.5

Basinger fine sand-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes

(6)

High

#10 #40 #60 #100 #200 Liquid

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BB - 01 14 - 16 SP-SM - - - - 6 - - - 20

BB - 01 36 - 37.5 SP-SM - - - - 10 - - - 22

BB - 01 48.5 - 50 SC - - - - 33 - - - 33

BB - 01 58.5 - 60 SM - - - - 45 - - - 42

BB - 02 12.0 - 14.0 SP - - - - 2 - - - 22

BB - 02 23.5 - 25.0 SP-SM - - - - 6 - - - 22

BB - 02 31.0 - 32.5 SC-SM - - - - 20 - - - 19

BB - 02 46.0 - 47.5 SC - - - - 25 - 36 17 26

BB - 02 51.0 - 52.5 SM - - - - 45 - 42 16 35

BB - 02 83.5 - 85.0 SM - - - - 35 - - - 68

BB - 02 96.0 - 97.5 SP - - - - 2 - - - 25

BB - 03 10.0 - 12.0 SP - - - - 4 - - - 23

BB - 03 18.5 - 20.0 SP-SM - - - - 6 - - - 23

BB - 03 41.0 - 42.5 SP-SM - - - - 6 - - - 22

BB - 03 53.5 - 55.0 SC - - - - 22 - 29 14 35

BB - 03 58.5 - 60.0 SC-SM - - - - 18 - - - 33

BB - 03 76.0 - 77.5 SC - - - - 28 - 43 25 42

BB - 04 31 - 32.5 SP - - - - 4 - - - 25

BB - 04 38.5 - 40 SP-SM - - - - 8 - - - 23

BB - 04 61 - 62.5 SM - - - - 44 - 46 17 42

BB - 04 63.5 - 65 SC - - - - 44 - 62 40 79

Creek…