Attachment_U_Geotechnical_Engineering_Report.PDF

Geotechnical Engineering Report Gee Creek Winter Park Drive Wall Repair

Gee Creek Lane and Winter Park Drive

Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

March 15, 2017

Terracon Project No. H1165331

Prepared for:

CPH, Inc.

Orlando, Florida

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Winter Park, Florida

Terracon Consultants, Inc . 1675 Lee Road Winter Park, Flor ida 32789

P [407] 740 6110 F [407] 740 6112 terracon.com

CPH, Inc.

1117 East Robinson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801

Attn: Mr. Terry Zaudtke, P.E

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Gee Creek Winter Park Drive Wall Repair

Gee Creek Lane and Winter Park Drive

Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

Terracon Project Number: H1165331

Dear Mr. Zaudtke:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project in Casselberry, Florida. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number PH1165331 dated December 9, 2016.

This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning slope repair at the subject site.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Certificate of Authorization Number 8830

Shenna McMaster, P.E. Jay W. Casper, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal

FL Registration No. 57537

This report has been electronically signed and sealed by Shenna McMaster, P.E. on 3/15/17 using a Digital Signature.

Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil Survey

3.2 Typical Profile

3.3 Groundwater

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Slope Stability Analyses

4.2 Sheet Pile Analyses

GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Topographic Vicinity Map

Exhibit A-2 Soils Map

Exhibit A-3 Soil Survey Descriptions

Exhibit A-4 Boring Location Plan

Exhibit A-5 Field Exploration Description

Exhibits A-6 to A-9 Soil Boring Profiles

Exhibit A-10 Static Cone Penetrometer Logs

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing

Exhibit B-2 Grain Size and Corrosion Series Testing Results

Exhibit B-3 Grain Size Analyses Curves

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes

Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

APPENDIX D – SLOPE STABILITY

APPENDIX E – SHEET PILE ANALYSES

Table E-1 Analysis Summary

Calculations

Gee Creek Wall Repair ■ Casselberry, Florida March 15, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. H1165331

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical investigation has been performed for retaining wall and slope repair at North

Winter Park Drive and Gee Creek, north of Gee Creek Lane in Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida. Four borings, designated as B-1 through B-4, have been performed to depths of 9 to 40 feet below the ground surface in the area of the proposed wall and slope repair.

Based on the information obtained from our geotechnical exploration, the following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Soil conditions observed consisted of fine sand with varying amounts of silt. The relative densities of the sands were loose in the upper 6 feet and medium dense below.

Groundwater was observed at depths that ranged from about 6 to 9 feet below existing grade during the filed exploration (January of 2017). Seasonal high groundwater levels are expected to be dependent on water levels in the creek.

Surficial erosion of the side slope between the road and the creek is apparent. Based on topographic survey provided, current side slopes of 1H:1V are apparent. A sheet pile retaining wall is planned to protect the roadway from eroding into the creek. Use of a cantilevered sheet pile wall placed at the top of the slope would require sheet pile lengths of at least 37 feet (from the top of the wall) and would require a relatively heavy section such as a PZ35 with approximately 1 inch of permanent deflection at the top.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

GEE CREEK AT NORTH WINTER PARK DRIVE

CASSELBERRY, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Terracon Project No. H1165331

INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report has been performed for the retaining wall and slope repair at North Winter Park Drive and Gee Creek, north of Gee Creek Lane in Casselberry, Seminole

County, Florida as shown on the Topographic Vicinity Map included as Exhibit A-1 in Appendix

A. Four borings, designated as B-1 through B-4, were performed to depths of 9 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface in the area of the proposed wall and slope repair. Logs of the borings along with a Boring Location Plan are included in Appendix A of this report. Laboratory testing procedures are included in Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations for design of a sheet pile retaining wall and provide soil and groundwater parameters to assist in erosion protection for the side slope between the road and creek.

PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

The project involves a portion of North Winter Park Drive near Gee Creek Lane in Casselberry, Florida. The existing cantilever retaining wall adjacent to the roadway is on a shallow foundation system bearing near elevation +46 feet. The bottom of the creek is about elevation +40 feet. Due to surface erosion of the side slope, the footings for the retaining wall are exposed in areas and there is concern that the roadway may be damaged if the erosion continues. Installation of a sheet pile wall to protect North Winter Park Drive from erosion due to the creek is planned where the roadway is closest to the creek. Additional erosion control measures may be installed in other adjacent areas of North Winter Park Drive and Gee Creek Lane.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location This project is located along Gee Creek, just north of Gee Creek Lane in the City of Casselberry in Seminole County, Florida.

Current ground cover Grass and weeds on the creek bank, adjacent to a concrete retaining wall approximately 4 feet from Winter Park Drive.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Existing topography

The USGS topographic quadrangle map “Casselberry, Florida” depicts the ground surface elevations in the vicinity of the site near elevation +50 feet referencing the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). Site specific topographic information indicates that North Winter Park Drive is near elevation +50 feet and the bottom of Gee Creek is near elevation +40 feet.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soil Survey

The Soil Survey of Seminole County, Florida as prepared by the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS; later renamed the Natural Resource

Conservation Service - NRCS), identifies the soil type at the subject site as Pompano fine sand

(28). It should be noted that the Soil Survey is not intended as a substitute for site-specific geotechnical exploration; rather it is a useful tool in planning a project scope in that it provides information on soil types likely to be encountered. Boundaries between adjacent soil types on the

Soil Survey maps are approximate (included in Appendix as Exhibit A-2). A description of the mapped soil unit is included in Appendix A as Exhibit A-3.

3.2 Typical Profile

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Approximate Depth to Bottom of

Stratum (feet) Material Description

Relative

Density

6 Fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) Loose1

At least 40 feet Fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) Medium dense

1. Due to concerns for buried utilities, the upper 6 feet of the borings were hand augered. A static penetrometer was used to evaluate the density of the soils where hand augering was performed.

Static penetrometer readings are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

Conditions encountered at each boring location and results of laboratory testing are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types. The in-situ transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. Descriptions of our field exploration are included as Exhibit A-5 in Appendix A. Descriptions of our laboratory testing procedures are included as Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B. General notes for SPT borings can

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 be found in Exhibit C-1. A more detailed description of the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS) is included as Exhibit C-2 in Appendix C.

3.3 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed during drilling for the presence and level of groundwater.

Groundwater was observed in the borings, between depths of 6 and 6 feet below existing grade.

It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the boring was performed. In addition, perched water can develop within higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. Seasonal high groundwater levels at the site are dependent on seasonal fluctuations of the water levels in the creek.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Based on the information obtained from our geotechnical exploration, the following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Soil conditions observed consisted of sand with varying amounts of silt at existing grade to the explored depths of 9 to 40 feet below existing grade.

Slope stability analyses indicates that side slopes of 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V) should be stable if adequate surface erosion protection methods are installed.

Use of a cantilevered sheet pile wall placed at the top of the slope would require sheet pile length of 37 feet, assuming soils in the creek may scoured to elevation +38 feet. For sheet pile section PZ35, a top deflection of about 1 inch is anticipated.

4.1 Slope Stability Analyses

Slope stability analyses were performed with the computer program, STABL for Windows, Version

3.0, for the typical soil profile described previously. These analyses indicate that the embankment should generally be stable where a side slope of 2H:1V is present. The safety factor for slope stability can be significantly affected by lowering of the groundwater level in the canal. Slope stability analyses were performed considering a groundwater table difference of 3 feet between the creek and at the slope face. Printouts of a few representative slope stability analysis results are included in Appendix D.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Where side slopes steeper than 2H:1V are present, and/or if higher variation in groundwater levels are anticipated, side slope stabilization measures, such as construction of gabions or similar measures, may be appropriate. Surface erosion measures, such as sodding, placement of rip-rap, or erosion control mats are recommended along all areas of the side slope.

4.2 Sheet Pile Analyses

It is our understanding sheet piles will be installed along the portion of the roadway closest to the creek. Based on survey information and cross-sections provided, the following embankment geometry was analyzed:

The top of the embankment is near elevation +50 feet.

The creek bottom is scoured to an elevation of +38 feet. The soils in front of the sheet pile above elevation +38 feet were not considered in the analysis, so an exposed height of 12 feet was used in the analysis.

Sheet pile analyses considered a cantilevered sheet pile installed at the top of the slope.

The water level in the creek was assumed to be near current levels (near elevation +41 feet) and elevation +47 feet behind the wall. A surcharge load of 100 psf was applied in the analyses within a horizontal distance of 6 feet from the top of the slope and a surcharge load of 250 psf was applied from 6 to 30 feet from the top of the wall.

A factor of safety of 1.0 for both active and passive pressures was used to determine the pile tip elevation. Factors of safety of 1.0 and 1.5 for active and passive pressures, respectively, were used to determine the minimum section properties.

The input soil and groundwater parameters were obtained from the SPT borings performed for this exploration. Sheet pile geometry and sections were evaluated using the software model, Shoring Suite, Version 8. The attached Table E-1 in Appendix E presents a summary of the analysis results.

For the cantilevered sheet pile section, a sheet pile length of 37 feet is required. Use of a sheet pile section PZ35 would provide a deflection of about 1 inch at the top of the wall.

The sheet pile wall above was designed to prevent soils from behind the wall from continuing to erode towards the creek. However, some sloughing of soils in front of the wall towards the creek may continue after installation of the sheet pile wall, unless surface erosion measures are installed.

Corrosion Protection: Corrosion series testing was performed on soil samples obtained from the anticipated sheet pile retaining wall location. The results of the corrosion series testing is included

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 as Exhibit B-2 in Appendix B. Based on the testing, an environmental classification of slightly aggressive for both steel and concrete is recommended. Protective coating or sacrificial thickness of steel should be considered with regards to the corrosive environment.

Turbidity Control: Turbidity should be controlled in accordance with water management district and other governing requirements.

Future Excavations: Future excavation or dredging in the creek should consider the sheet pile wall. Removal of soils in front of the sheet pile walls may cause movement of the sheet pile wall and possibly failure of the wall. Dredging should not be attempted without further engineering evaluation.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBITTOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY MAP

1000090008000

5000 7000

.5

0 2000

.5

KILOMETERS

MILES

FEET

SCALE 1:24 000

7.5 MINUTE SERIES (QUADRANGLE)

CASSELBERRY, FLORIDA

N

SM

MG

SM

JWC

H1165331

AS SHOWN

H1165331

1-10-17

GEE CREEK CROSSING-RETAINING WALL REPAIR

N. WINTER PARK DRIVE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CASSELBERRY, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

1675 LEE ROAD WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789

FAX. (407) 740-6112PH. (407) 740-6110

SITE

A-1

STATE ROAD 434

U .S

. H

IG

H W

AY

7-

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBITSOILS MAPSM

MG

SM

JWC

H1165331

AS SHOWN

H1165331

1-10-17

GEE CREEK CROSSING-RETAINING WALL REPAIR

N. WINTER PARK DRIVE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CASSELBERRY, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

1675 LEE ROAD WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789

FAX. (407) 740-6112PH. (407) 740-6110

A-2

SOIL LEGEND

POMPANO FINE SAND, OCCASIONALLY FLOODED28

100009000800060005000 70004000300010000 20001000

SCALE 1" = 2000'

ISSUED: 1974

U.S.D.A. SOIL SURVEY FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA N

SITE

STATE ROAD 434

U .S

. H

IG

H W

AY

7-

March 3, 2017 ■ Terracon Project No. H1165331

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Soil Survey Description

28 – Pompano fine sand, occasionally flooded. This soil type is nearly level and poorly drained.

It is typically found on the floodplains. During years of normal precipitation, this soil type has a seasonal high water table within 12 inches (1.0 foot) of the surface for 2 to 6 months. This soil type is subject to occasional flooding, typically following heavy rains. This soil type is predominantly sand throughout the defined profile.

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBITBORING LOCATION PLANSM

MG

SM

JWC

H1165331

AS SHOWN

H1165331

2-8-17

GEE CREEK CROSSING-RETAINING WALL REPAIR

N. WINTER PARK DRIVE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CASSELBERRY, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

1675 LEE ROAD WINTER PARK, FLORIDA 32789

FAX. (407) 740-6112PH. (407) 740-6110

A-4

N

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STANDARD

PENETRATION TEST BORING

B-3

N . W

IN

TE

R P

AR

K

D R

IV

E

GEE CREEK LANE

G

EE

C

RE

EK

C

O

UR

T

B-1

B-2

B-4

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-5

Field Exploration Description

The boring locations were laid out at the project site by Terracon personnel. The locations indicated on the attached diagram are approximate and were measured by pacing distances and estimating right angles. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them.

The field exploration was planned to include one boring to a depth of 40 feet where the proposed sheet pile retaining wall will be constructed and three borings to a depth of 15 feet in adjacent areas. Due to access restrictions onto private property, one boring (B-3) was performed as a manual auger boring rather than an SPT boring with a drill rig.

The SPT soil borings were drilled with rotary drilling rig equipped with a rope and cathead-operated safety hammer. Due to concerns for buried utilities, the upper 5 feet of the SPT borings were hand augered. The boreholes were advanced with a cutting head and stabilized with the use of bentonite (drillers’ mud). Soil samples were obtained by the split spoon sampling procedure in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure. In the split spoon sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration or the middle 12 inches of a 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The sampling depths and penetration distance, plus the standard penetration resistance values, are shown on the boring logs.

Due to access restrictions, Boring B-3 was performed with manual augering equipment. The hand auger boring procedure consisted of manually turning a 3 inch diameter, 6 inch long sampler into the soil until it is full. The sampler was then retrieved and the soils in the sampler were visually examined and classified. The procedure was repeated until the desired termination depth was achieved or shallow groundwater levels cause collapse of the borehole. Samples of representative strata were obtained for further visual examination and classification in our laboratory.

A penetrometer was used within the hand augered portion of the SPT borings and in the hand auger boring. The penetrometer used during the hand auger procedure is a hand operated device which obtains the relative resistance to penetration of a standard size cone shaped tip into the soil. As the cone is pushed into the soil the maximum pressure is indicated on a hydraulic gauge or proving ring. These pressure readings are shown on the attached boring profiles at the tested locations and depths as well as Exhibit A-10. Although the penetrometer readings do not directly correlate to the SPT N-values, comparison of penetrometer reading within and between boring locations can provide a basis for evaluation of relative looseness and compaction of soils.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-5

Portions of the samples from the borings were sealed in glass jars to reduce moisture loss, and then the jars were taken to our laboratory for further observation and classification. Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with the site soil.

Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation of the samples.

P=17

P=21

P=19

8-7-5-5 N=12

4-3-4-4 N=7

4-4-6 N=10

6-7-7 N=14

5-5-5 N=10

4.0

13.5

18.5

23.5

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark gray-brown

SAND (SP), light gray to light brown to brown

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light brown

SAND (SP), light brown

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light brown

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Hammer Type: Rope and CatheadStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

H

1-

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

.G D

T

/3 /1

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 28.68565° Longitude: -81.31529°

See Exhibit A-4

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: H1165331

Drill Rig: DR-16

Boring Started: 1/26/2017

BORING LOG NO. B-1

CPH, IncCLIENT:

Driller: MC

Boring Completed: 1/26/2017

Exhibit: A-6

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining Wall Report

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Water Initially Observed at 6.5'

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

8-8-8 N=16

10-9-11 N=20

6-6-8 N=14

28.5

33.5

38.5

40.0

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light brown (continued)

SAND (SP), light brown

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray

SILTY SAND (SM), trace clay, light gray

Boring Terminated at 40 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Hammer Type: Rope and CatheadStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

H

1-

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

.G D

T

/3 /1

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 28.68565° Longitude: -81.31529°

See Exhibit A-4

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: H1165331

Drill Rig: DR-16

Boring Started: 1/26/2017

BORING LOG NO. B-1

CPH, IncCLIENT:

Driller: MC

Boring Completed: 1/26/2017

Exhibit: A-6

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining Wall Report

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Water Initially Observed at 6.5'

P=20

P=19

P=23

8-7-8-7 N=15

7-9-8-8 N=17

6-5-5 N=10

3.5

4.5

6.5

13.5

15.0

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), brown

SAND (SP), gray

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), dark brown

SAND (SP), reddish-brown

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), brown

Boring Terminated at 15 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Hammer Type: Rope and CatheadStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

H

1-

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

.G D

T

/3 /1

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 28.68596° Longitude: -81.31493°

See Exhibit A-4

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: H1165331

Drill Rig: DR-16

Boring Started: 1/26/2017

BORING LOG NO. B-2

CPH, IncCLIENT:

Driller: MC

Boring Completed: 1/26/2017

Exhibit: A-7

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining Wall Report

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Water Initially Observed at 9.3'

9.0

SAND (SP), gray-brown to light brown to brown

Boring Terminated at 9 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

H

1-

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

.G D

T

/3 /1

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 28.68553° Longitude: -81.3555°

See Exhibit A-4

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: H1165331

Drill Rig:

Boring Started: 1/26/2017

BORING LOG NO. B-3

CPH, IncCLIENT:

Driller: MC

Boring Completed: 1/26/2017

Exhibit: A-8

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining Wall Report

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Water Initially Observed at 6.0'

P=18

P=17

P=19

7-8-4-4 N=12

4-3-3-3 N=6

4-5-4 N=9

4.0

7.0

8.0

15.0

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), brown to gray-brown

SAND (SP), gray

SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), brown

SAND (SP), brown to light brown

Boring Terminated at 15 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Hammer Type: Rope and CatheadStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

H

1-

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

.G D

T

/3 /1

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION

Latitude: 28.68548° Longitude: -81.3153°

See Exhibit A-4

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: H1165331

Drill Rig: DR-16

Boring Started: 1/26/2017

BORING LOG NO. B-4

CPH, IncCLIENT:

Driller: MC

Boring Completed: 1/26/2017

Exhibit: A-9

See Exhibit A-5 for description of field procedures See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining Wall Report

1675 Lee Rd Winter Park, FL

Water Initially Observed at 7.1'

Static Cone Penetrometer Test Logs

Project Number: Date:

Project Name: Tested By:

Project Location: N. Winter Park Drive/Gee Creek Lane

Client: Page 1 of 1

Probe #: Probe #:

Location: Location:

Depth Resistance Equivalent Depth Resistance Equivalent

(in) (kg/cm^2) SPT N (in) (kg/cm^2) SPT N

12 19 4 12 20 4

24 17 3 24 20 4

36 21 4 36 19 4

48 22 4 48 21 4

60 22 4 60 26 5

72 19 4 72 23 4

Notes: Notes:

Probe #:

Location:

Depth Resistance Equivalent

(in) (kg/cm^2) SPT N

12 18 3

24 18 3

36 20 4

48 17 3

60 17 3

72 19 4

Notes:

B-4

B-2

H1165331

Gee Creek

CPH

26-Jan-17

M. Cornele

B-1

Exhibit A-10

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing

During the field exploration, a portion of each recovered sample was sealed in a glass jar and transported to our laboratory for further visual observation and laboratory testing. Selected samples retrieved from the borings were tested for moisture (water) content, grain size analyses

(soil passing a US standard #200 sieve and full sieve analyses), and corrosion series. The visual-manual classifications were modified as appropriate based upon the laboratory testing results.

The laboratory testing results are included in this report on the respective boring logs, except for full sieve grain size analyses and corrosion series testing. The results of the corrosion series testing and full sieve analyses are included on Exhibit B-2. Grain size curves generated on the full sieve analyses are included as Exhibit B-3.

The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the appended General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the material's texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is shown on the boring logs and a brief description of the Unified Soil Classification System is included in Appendix C.

Boring Sample Minimum Chlorides Sulfates Depth Resistivity (feet) (ohm-cm)

B-1 4.0 7.3 23,000 60 <5 B-1 7.0 7.4 9,900 60 <5

4 10 40 60 100 200

B-2 4.5 100 100 98 87 48 36 7 B-3 6.0 100 100 97 82 21 3 3 B-4 13.5 100 100 98 80 13 1 26

EXHIBIT B-2

Number

GEE CREEK RETAINING WALL REPAIR

N. WINTER PARK DRIVE AND GEE CREEK LANE

CASSELBERRY, FLORIDA

TERRACON PROJECT NO. H1165331

pH (ppm) (ppm)

CORROSION SERIES TESTING RESULTS FOR SOILS

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES

Boring Number

Sample Depth (feet)

Percent Passing Sieve No. Moisture Content

Substructural Environmental Classification

Steel Slightly Aggressive Slightly Aggressive

Concrete Slightly Aggressive Slightly Aggressive

Exhibit B-2

0.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PERCENT FINER

3/4 1/23/8

SIEVE

(size)

D60

30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

% FINES % CLAY USCS

B-2 0.0 0.0 63.6

0.175

DEPTH

GRAIN SIZE

16 20

REMARKS

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

medium

36.4

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 fine coarse

SOIL DESCRIPTION

CU

BORING ID

10 14 506 2001.5 81 140 coarse fine

COEFFICIENTS

% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND

D30

D10

CC

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

% SILT

100.0 99.93 98.39 86.87 48.08 36.36

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

1 1/2" 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

4.5 - 5

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

PROJECT NUMBER: H1165331

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining

Wall Report

SITE: N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida CLIENT: CPH, Inc

EXHIBIT: B-1

1675 Lee Rd

Winter Park, FL

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R

R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

H

1- B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N

.G

D T

/1

5/

EXHIBIT B-3

0.0010.010.1110100

0.097

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PERCENT FINER

3/4 1/23/8

SIEVE

(size)

D60

30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

% FINES % CLAY USCS

B-3 0.0 0.0 96.7

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

0.161

0.208

1.29

DEPTH

GRAIN SIZE

16 20

REMARKS

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

medium

3.3

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 fine coarse

SOIL DESCRIPTION

CU 2.14

BORING ID

10 14 506 2001.5 81 140 coarse fine

COEFFICIENTS

% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND

D30

D10

CC

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

% SILT

100.0 99.93 97.26 81.72 21.26 3.35

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SP

1 1/2" 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

6 - 6.5

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

PROJECT NUMBER: H1165331

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining

Wall Report

SITE: N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida CLIENT: CPH, Inc

EXHIBIT: B-1

1675 Lee Rd

Winter Park, FL

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

H

1- B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N

.G

D T

/1

5/

0.0010.010.1110100

0.126

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PERCENT FINER

3/4 1/23/8

SIEVE

(size)

D60

30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

% FINES % CLAY USCS

B-4 0.0 0.0 99.2

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

0.171

0.215

1.08

DEPTH

GRAIN SIZE

16 20

REMARKS

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

medium

0.8

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 fine coarse

SOIL DESCRIPTION

CU 1.71

BORING ID

10 14 506 2001.5 81 140 coarse fine

COEFFICIENTS

% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND

D30

D10

CC

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

% SILT

100.0 99.97 99.97 97.61 79.61 13.11 0.81

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SP

1 1/2" 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

13.5 - 15

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

PROJECT NUMBER: H1165331

PROJECT: Gee Creek Crossing-Retaining

Wall Report

SITE: N. Winter Park Drive Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida CLIENT: CPH, Inc

EXHIBIT: B-1

1675 Lee Rd

Winter Park, FL

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

H

1- B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N

.G

D T

/1

5/

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPENDIX D

SLOPE STABILITY

APPENDIX E

SHEET PILE ANALYSES

A-328

(fy = 36 ksi)*

A-572

(fy = 50 ksi)*

Cantilever 37 45.5 32.8 61,370 1.173 x 10

+50 +38 +50 +41 +47 100 250

Notes:

(1) Pedestrian Design Load applied at 0 to 6 feet from the top of slope.

(2) Vehicle Traffic Design Load applied at 6 to 30 feet from the top of slope.

(3) Soils above elevation +38 feet in front of the wall was not considered in the analysis.

* Allowable design stress. Based on 65% of the yield stress (fy) for hot-rolled sections.

** Divide maximum scaled deflection by Modulus of Elasticity (lb/in ) times the Moment of Inertia (in

) to obtain deflection (in). [Modulus of Elasticity x Moment of Inertia]

Design Parameters***

Front of Wall

(feet)

Scaled Deflection Deflection =

Condition

Water Elevation

TABLE E-1

Gee Creek/N. Winter Park Drive Wall Repair

Casselberry, Seminole County, Florida

Terracon Project No.H1165331

Steel Sheet Pile Wall Data Table

Maximum

Allowable

Bending

Moment

(feet-lb)

Design Live

Load (psf)

Construction Information***

Design Live

Load (psf)

*** The design parameters indicated in this table were used in sheet pile wall analysis. If the contractor plans operations which exceed the design parameters shown above, it is the Contractor's responsibility to redesign and construct the walls accordingly. Safety factors of 1.5 and 1.0 were applied to the passive and active soil pressures, respectively in evaluation of the minimum required sheet pile section. A safety factor of 1.0 for both active and passive pressures was used in pile tip elevation. The sheet pile analysis and section properties are per 1-foot of wall. If groundwater elevations vary significantly from those shown in this table, the design engineer should be notified immediately in order to re-evaluate the parameters presented in this table.

Total Pile

Length (ft)

Maximum

Scaled

Deflection

(lb-in

Wall Top

Elevation

(feet)

Soil Elevation

Back of Wall

(feet)

Minimum Section Modulus

(in

Front of Wall

(feet)

Back of Wall

(feet)

sheet-pile-wall-data-table.pdf