Horizon_West_Trail_Phase_I_Boardwalk_-_Geotechnical_Report_.pdf

Prepared for:

WBQ Design & Engineering, Inc.

201 N Magnolia Ave, Suite 200

Orlando, FL 32801

Prepared by:

Nadic Engineering Services, Inc.

601 N. Hart Blvd

Orlando, Florida 32818 407-521-4771

Consultants in: Civil ꞏ Environmental ꞏ Geotechnical Engineering Offices in: Orlando ꞏ Miami

Geotechnical Report for Boardwalk Horizon West Trail Phase I

From Tiny Road to Winter Garden Vineland Road

Orange County, Florida Orange County Project No.: Y21-806-CH

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD21034

April 16, 2024

WBQ Design & Engineering, Inc.

201 N Magnolia Ave, Suite 200 Orlando FL 32801

Attention: Mr. Troy Vargas, P.E.

Sr. Associate

RE: Geotechnical Report for Boardwalk Horizon West Trail Phase I From Tiny Road to Winter Garden Vineland Road Orange County, Florida Orange County Project No.: Y21-806-CH

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034

Dear Mr. Vargas:

Nadic Engineering Services, Inc. (NADIC) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report for the planned boardwalk bridge for the proposed Horizon West Trail Phase I from Tiny Road to Winter Garden Vineland Road in Orange County, Florida. The purpose of this report is to explore the subsurface conditions at the proposed subject site and use the geotechnical information obtained to evaluate and provide recommendations to support the design and construction of the proposed boardwalk bridge.

This report describes our exploration, laboratory testing and includes our foundation analyses and recommendations.

NADIC appreciates the opportunity to be of service to WBQ and Orange County Public Works Department on this project. We look forward to a continued association. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance to you as this project proceeds.

Sincerely, NADIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

Engineering Business No. 8214

Maria Bridges, M.S. Godwin Nnadi, Ph.D., P.E.

Engineer Intern Principal Engineer FL Registration No. 50637 Cc: Jocelyn Haisch-Linn, PE – DRMP S:\New Z Drive\...\PR.GEO-RD21034 – Horizon West Trail Phase 1\Project Working File\Report

WBQ April 16, 2024 Horizon West Trail Phase I - Boardwalk NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page i of ii

NADIC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

3.1 USGS Topographic Map

3.2 Orange County USDA/NRCS Soil Survey

3.3 Potentiometric Surface Map

3.4 Generalized Geology

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM AND METHODS

4.1 Field Exploration Program

4.2 Field Exploration Method

4.2.1 Standard Penetration Test Borings

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Boardwalk Boring Results

5.2 Groundwater Conditions

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

6.1 Corrosion Tests

7.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Foundation Alternatives

7.2 Selected Foundation System

7.3 Axial Capacity for Piles

7.4 Pile Tip Estimates

7.5 Downdrag Considerations/Embankment Settlement

7.6 Lateral Load Consideration

7.7 Pile Group Action

7.8 Pile Settlement

7.9 Test Pile Program

7.10 Excavations

8.0 FHWA REPORT CHECKLIST

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page ii of ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map Figure 3 USDA/NRCS Soil Map Figure 4 Potentiometric Surface Map Figure 5 Boring Location Map Table 3 Summary of Laboratory Tests Table 6 Soil Information for FL Pier Input

APPENDIX B

Sheets 1 through 3 Report of Boardwalk Borings

APPENDIX C

Plate 1 Axial Capacity Design Curves

APPENDIX D

FB-Deep Output Files

APPENDIX E

FHWA Checklist

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 1 of 13

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Orange County Public Works Department retained WBQ to provide engineering design construction plans for Horizon West Trail Phase I from the existing Tiny Road to the existing Horizon West Trail at Winter Garden Vineland Road in Orange County. The multi-use trail is planned as a 10- to 14-ft wide, asphalt pavement. In order to minimize environmental impacts, a portion of the trail is planned to be constructed as a boardwalk bridge structure.

The multi-use trail project site is located in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 9 of Township 23 South, Range 27 East of Winter Garden quadrangle in Orange County, Florida.

This report deals specifically with the proposed pedestrian boardwalk bridge within the Horizon West Trail Phase I limit. The structure is located at the following approximate location:

Table 1 Boardwalk Approximate Location and Length

Structure Station Approximate

Length (ft) Approximate

Width (ft) Begin End

Boardwalk Crossing 2013+11.01 2021+49.26 838.3 14

Specifically, the boardwalk structure is located in Sections 3 & 4 of Township 23 South and Range 27 East of Winter Garden quadrangle in Orange County, Florida. Site Vicinity Map location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.

The following report presents the findings of our literature review, our subsurface exploration program, an evaluation of the soil and groundwater conditions, and provides recommendations to guide design of the proposed boardwalk bridge foundations.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this study was to perform a field exploration testing program and provide engineering assessments and recommendations to guide the design and construction of the proposed pedestrian boardwalk using the results of the field testing programs as well as information from published data report prepared by others.

Specifically, the following scope of work was performed to achieve the purpose of this study.

1. Reviewed readily available published geologic and topographic information. This published information was obtained from the appropriate Quadrangle Maps and Soil Survey Maps published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 2 of 13

2. Performed site reconnaissance, coordinated Standard Penetration Test boring locations and clearance with utility locators.

3. Executed a field exploration program consisting of a total of seven (7) SPT borings to a depth of 75 feet below grade, along the proposed boardwalk bridge.

4. Prepared this formal engineering report summarizing the field exploration, laboratory tests, engineering analyses, evaluation and recommendations.

3.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

3.1 USGS Topographic Map

The “WINTER GARDEN, Florida" United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps issued in 2021 were reviewed for ground surface features. The maps show the ground surface elevation in the proposed project vicinity to range from about approximately +120 feet, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD-88). The project alignment is shown on an excerpt of the USGS Topographic Maps presented on Figure 2 in Appendix A.

3.2 Orange County USDA/NRCS Soil Survey

The “Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida” published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was reviewed. The following table describes the primary mapping unit(s) within the project vicinity. Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for a reproduction of the USDA/NRCS Map for the project area. The mapped soil unit encountered is as follows.

Table 2: USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Summary

Soil Series Depth

(inches) Soil Description USCS*

USDA

SHGWT**

(ft)

Risk of Corrosion

Uncoated Steel

Concrete

Pomello (34)

0-40 40-55 55-80

Fine sand Coarse sand, sand, fine sand Coarse sand, sand, fine sand

SP, SP-SM

SP-SM, SM

SP, SP-SM

2.0-3.5 Low High

Sanibel Muck (42)

0-11 11-15 15-80

Muck Sand, fine sand, mucky fine sand

Sand, fine sand

PT

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

0-1.0 High Low

** USCS = Unified Soil Classification System.

*** SHGWT = Seasonal High Groundwater Table

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 3 of 13

The information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey is very general and may be outdated due to recent development in the site vicinity. Therefore, it may not reflect the actual soil and groundwater conditions, particularly where developments may have modified soil conditions or surface and near surface drainage.

3.3 Potentiometric Surface Map

Based on review of the map titled “Upper Floridan Potentiometric Surface, Florida, 2017,” published by the USGS, the elevation of the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the project location appears to range from about +75 to +85 feet, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD-88). Portions of this Potentiometric Map are presented on Figure 4 in Appendix A.

Artesian groundwater conditions of a site can be predicted based on comparison of the Floridan aquifer potentiometric surface and ground surface elevations. Since the existing ground surface elevations at the project site are above the anticipated potentiometric surface, artesian flow conditions are not expected at this site.

3.4 Generalized Geology

The geology of the Central Florida area is characterized by sedimentary strata formed during three distinct geologic periods. The surficial stratum is composed of undifferentiated Holocene/Pleistocene/Pliocene age sands containing varying amounts of silt and clay, which extend typically to depths on the order of 40 to 60 feet below the ground surface. This upper, mostly sandy zone contains the surficial aquifer (water table). A Miocene age deposit, the Hawthorn Formation, frequently underlies the surficial sands and is typically composed of clay, clayey sands and sandy limestone sometimes containing appreciable amounts of phosphate. This stratum extends to typical depths of 80 to 120 feet beneath the existing ground surface and serves as the confining layer for the underlying Florida Aquifer.

The Eocene age Ocala and Avon Park limestone formations are contained in the Florida Aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the world. The extremely high productivity of this aquifer is directly related to its numerous cavities and interconnected channels. The deepest formation of the Eocene age is the Avon Park limestone. The Avon Park limestone consists mostly of hard brown dolostone and tan, granular limestone. Above the Avon Park limestone is the Ocala limestone. The Ocala limestone is a loose to moderate well cemented mass of very small to large microfossils with much less dolostone than the Avon Park limestone. Typically, the Ocala limestone contains almost pure limestone with no dolostone, although the lower few feet can be partly dolomitized in some areas.

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 4 of 13

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM AND METHODS

4.1 Field Exploration Program

The subsurface exploration performed by NADIC consisted of a total of seven (7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings at the boardwalk foundation. The SPT borings were drilled to a depth of 75 feet below existing grade. Borings were performed at locations with ground surface elevations ranging from about +117.4 to +119.0 feet, NAVD-88.

The boring locations were established in the field based on information provided by WBQ. All borings were staked in the field by a representative of NADIC with the aid of a hand-held Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) device. The station, offset and elevations at each SPT boring location were provided by WBQ based on GPS coordinates.

Upon completion and after groundwater measurements, all borings were grouted for safety. The boring locations are also presented on Figure 5 in Appendix A.

4.2 Field Exploration Method

4.2.1 Standard Penetration Test Borings

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed at boring locations in general conformance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D-1586.

The borings were advanced by the rotary wash method with bentonite-based mud as the circulating fluid to stabilize the borehole. The SPT borings were generally performed continuously from the ground surface to 10.5 feet and at 5-foot depth intervals thereafter. After seating the sampler six inches, the number of successive blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches into the soil constitutes the test result commonly referred to as the “N” value. Adjacent to the SPT boring profiles on Sheets 1 through 3 in Appendix B are the “N” values. The “N” value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered indicative of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils.

The recovered split-barrel samples were described in the field with representative portions of the samples placed in airtight bags and transported to our office for visual classification and laboratory testing.

Groundwater levels were measured at the SPT boreholes for the purpose of evaluating the depth to groundwater at the time of our field exploration. Upon completion, each borehole was sealed with cement grout.

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 5 of 13

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The soils encountered were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (e.g.

SP, SM). Soils were described using the ASTM soil descriptions such as sand with silt. Soil classification and stratification in the SPT soil profiles are based on visual examination, interpretation of the boring logs by a geotechnical engineer and laboratory results of selected soil samples. Stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between different soil types.

However, actual transition between soils may be gradual and different than indicated. The soil profiles indicate subsurface conditions encountered only at the specific boring locations at the time of the field exploration. Moreover, conditions at the boring locations can change over time. The results of the borings are presented in the form of soil profiles on the attached Sheets 1 through 3 in Appendix B. Included with the soil profiles are the groundwater levels measured at the time the borings were performed and the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels.

The following generalized soil descriptions are intended to provide a brief summary of the observed subsurface conditions at the boardwalk location.

5.1 Boardwalk Boring Results

Soils encountered in the borings generally consisted of fine sand with varying amount of fines followed by clayey sand and sandy clay with interbedded layers of limestone to boring termination depths. Detailed information on specific strata encountered within the borings is presented in the form of soil profiles as Report of SPT Borings on Sheets 1 through 3 in Appendix B.

In general, the borings encountered the following generalized subsurface profiles:

Layer No.

Typical Layer

Elevation Range (ft, NAVD-88)

Soil Description Range of N-Values (blows/ft)

1 +119.0 – +111.0 Loose to dense brown to gray fine SAND with silt, trace organic (SP-SM)

5 – 32

2 +111.0 – +76.0 Soft to hard brown to gray clayey SAND (SC) with interbedded layer of firm to stiff gray sandy

CLAY (CH)

4 – 60

3 +76.0 – +60.0 Hard light brown silty LIMESTONE with cemented sands (LS)

15 – 78

4 +60.0 – +42.0

Hard gray sandy CLAY with limestone fragments (CL) to very dense light brown silty cemented SAND (SM) and gray to hard brown clayey SAND with cemented sands (SC)

34 – 83

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 6 of 13

5.2 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered at elevation ranging from about +111.5 feet to +113.5 feet, NAVD- 88 at the time of the field exploration (February and March 2023). The encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater tables are presented on Sheets 1 through 3 in Appendix B.

Groundwater levels can vary seasonally and with changes in subsurface conditions between boring locations. Alterations in subsurface and/or subsurface drainage pattern brought about by site development can also affect groundwater levels. In general, the estimated seasonal high groundwater level is not intended to define a limit or ensure future seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels will not exceed the estimated levels. Post-development groundwater levels could exceed the seasonal high groundwater level estimates as a result of a series of rainfall events, changed conditions at the site which alter surface water drainage characteristics, or variations in the duration, intensity, or total volume of rainfall.

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Soil samples were retained from the strata observed in the boring and returned to NADIC's laboratory for visual classification and stratification. Percent passing no. 200 sieve, moisture content and Atterberg limits were performed on selected samples. The results of these tests are presented on Table 3 in Appendix A and also on the Report of SPT borings.

6.1 Corrosion Tests

Environmental corrosion tests (pH, resistivity, chloride content, and sulfate content) were also performed on selected samples from the SPT borings. Corrosion tests were performed in accordance with FDOT Structure Design Guidelines. Based on FDOT criteria contained in the Structures Design Guidelines, the environmental classification for concrete and steel ranged from moderately aggressive to extremely aggressive. The environmental classification for the substructure is presented on Sheets 1 through 3 in Appendix B and should be classified as presented below:

Table 4 Summary of Environmental Classification

Boring No.

pH Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Chlorides (ppm)

Sulfate (ppm)

Substructure Environmental Classification

Steel Concrete

B-1 5.8 19,000 840 470 Extremely Aggressive Moderately Aggressive

B-4 6.1 39,000 840 360 Moderately Aggressive Moderately Aggressive

B-7 6.5 23,000 910 900 Moderately Aggressive Moderately Aggressive

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 7 of 13

Based on FDOT criteria contained in the Structures Design Guidelines, the environmental classification for the proposed bridge replacement site is slightly aggressive and moderately aggressive for both concrete substructure and steel substructure.

7.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analyses and recommendation contained in this report are based in part on the data obtained from a limited SPT borings. The investigation methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations, only at the time they were performed, only to the depths penetrated.

Borings cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect the variations that usually exist between boring locations and these variations may not become evident until construction. If variations from the conditions described in this report do become evident during construction, or if project characteristics described in this report change, NADIC should be retained so that we can reevaluate this report's conclusions and recommendations in light of such changes. The following sections of this report present an overview of the analyses conducted to date.

7.1 Foundation Alternatives

Based on the results of our field study, the following foundation types were evaluated for this submittal:

1. Shallow Foundations

2. Timber Piles

3. Steel Piles

4. Prestressed Concrete Piles (PCP)

Presented below is a brief discussion of each of the foundation alternatives:

1. Shallow Foundations

Shallow footings are not considered a technically feasible alternative for the boardwalk foundations because of high water table and environmental impacts; hence the structure has to be elevated from the ground surface.

Based on the information provided above, we do not recommend shallow foundations as a viable foundation alternative to support large boardwalk footings in these conditions.

2. Timber Piles

Timber Piles are not considered a practical foundation alternative for the project. Water is at ground surface or very close to the ground surface depending on the time of the year at most of the project area. It is anticipated that timber piles may be exposed and will likely rot unless treated with creosote. Exposure to creosote is considered hazardous and will also impact the environment. In addition, due to the compressible clayey soils encountered in

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 8 of 13 the borings, soils friction capacity of the pile will be reduced, where it has the greatest circumference and would result in very long timber piles necessary to achieve the required design capacity.

3. Steel Piles

Steel pile types include pipe piles and H-sections are a feasible foundation alternative. Steel piles are well suited to conditions with high variability in anticipated penetration depths where frequent splicing is expected. Steel piles will also more easily penetrate dense layers, if necessary, to achieve a desired penetration depth. Typical sizes of pipe piles range from 14 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The steel piles do not develop as much capacity for similar penetration depths as square concrete piles. As presented in this report, subsurface conditions at the proposed boardwalk sites are considered moderately to extremely aggressive for steel.

Due to corrosivity of steel and its impact on the environment, steel piles are not considered a viable foundation alternative.

4. Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles (PCP)

Driven square prestressed concrete piles are considered a feasible foundation system. PCP is readily available and generally has a lower cost per ton than other pile types. Estimated Davisson Capacity Curve for 14-inch PCP is presented on Plate 1 in Appendix C. FB-Deep computer output for 14-inch and 18- inch PCP piles is included in Appendix D.

7.2 Selected Foundation System

It is understood that 14-inch square precast prestressed concrete piles (PCP) have been selected as the preferred foundation for the proposed boardwalk bridge. Presented below is a discussion on design considerations and recommendations for 14-inch PCP.

7.3 Axial Capacity for Piles

Axial pile capacity analyses were performed for 14-inch diameter PCP piles using the FDOT computer FB-Deep Version 3.1.0 based on FDOT Research Bulletin RB-121. The results of these analyses presented in the form of Estimated Davisson Capacity Curves are presented in Appendix C.

The Estimated Davisson Capacity represents the theoretical failure capacity of a driven pile based on deflection criteria generated from static load testing. The Estimated Davisson Capacity of a single pile as computed by the FB-Deep program is as follows:

Estimated Davisson Capacity = Ultimate Skin Friction + Mobilized End Bearing

Where, mobilized end bearing is 1/3 of the ultimate end bearing as defined by the RB-121 report.

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 9 of 13

The Davisson Design Capacity Curves shown on Plate 1 in Appendix C can be used to find the approximate tip elevations and estimate pile lengths using the following formula:

Nominal Bearing Resistance (NBR) ≥ (Factored Design Load + Net Scour + Downdrag)/

Where is a resistance factor and if Driven Piles with ≥ 5% Dynamic Testing:

• = 0.75 for Driving Criteria based on Dynamic Testing and Analysis & Static

Load Test

• = 0.65 for Driving Criteria based Dynamic Testing and its Analysis

Where is a resistance factor and if Driven Piles with 100% Dynamic Testing:

• = 0.85 for Driving Criteria based on Dynamic Testing and Analysis & Static

Load Test

• = 0.75 for Driving Criteria based Dynamic Testing and its Analysis

7.4 Pile Tip Estimates

The estimated pile tip elevations are based on review of the borings, our pile capacity analyses, engineering judgement and understanding of criteria for pile bearing requirements in accordance with the FDOT specifications. Based on the Davisson Pile Capacity Curves for the 14-inch PCP generated, we recommend the following pile design parameters:

Table 5 14-inch Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles (PCP) Design Parameters

Boring No.

Station Offset

(ft)

Approx.

Ground surface

Elevation (ft)

Pile Type 14-inch Concrete Pile

NBR*

(Tons)

Pile Tip Elevation

(ft)

Estimated Pile Length

(ft)

Estimated Test Pile

Length (ft)

B-1 2012+90 2 LT +119.0 29 +88.7 30.3 45.3

B-2 2014+35 29 RT +118.7 29 +98.0 20.7 35.7

B-3 2016+03 4 RT +117.4 29 +99.6 17.8 32.8

B-4 2017+32 5 RT +117.7 29 +100.4 17.3 32.3

B-5 2018+98 6 LT +118.2 29 +104.0 14.2 29.2

B-6 2020+55 5 RT +117.8 29 +105.0 12.8 27.8

B-7 2021+90 18 LT +118.3 29 +104.8 13.5 28.5

* Nominal Bearing Resistance = Design Load + Net Scour + Downdrag Φ

The FB-Deep results are based on long-term axial capacity derived after dissipation of soil pore water pressures; therefore, skin friction capacity may take several days after end of pile drive to get to full capacity.

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 10 of 13

Elevations and capacities recommended herein are for individual piles. No reduction of the individual pile capacities will be required if piles are spaced center-to-center at three (3) times their width or greater. We recommend a test pile program to be conducted to verify driving conditions and refine estimates of pile length. The piles should be instrumented with the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) in accordance with FDOT Specification 455.

Pile rebound is observed during pile driving as backward movement of the pile after striking. This phenomenon is considered high pile rebound (HPR) or bouncing when the displacement exceeds 0.25 inches. This problem usually occurs if piles are driven into saturated soils with high silt or clay contents. HPR is not anticipated due to the project pile anticipated lengths.

7.5 Downdrag Considerations/Embankment Settlement

Based on our experience, embankment fill is not anticipated at the boardwalk approach abutment.

Therefore, settlement caused by the fill loads is not expected; hence, downdrag load is not anticipated on the piles.

The encountered near surface soil is composed primarily of loose to dense sandy soils, placement of any embankment fill on these granular cohesionless soils will result to immediate settlement which will essentially cease as the fill placement is completed.

Based on the soil profiles and SPT N-values (relative density), significant settlement is not anticipated. We anticipate most of the settlement to be elastic settlement. As boardwalk bridge loads and foundation type are finalized, we will further address possible downdrag loads, if any.

7.6 Lateral Load Consideration

It is understood that lateral loading analysis will be performed by the structural engineer. FL-Pier soil input parameters are presented in Table 6 in Appendix A to aid in design.

7.7 Pile Group Action

No reduction of the individual pile capacities will be required if piles are spaced center-to-center at 3 times their width or greater. The end bent 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, we do not recommend taking credit for this additional capacity.

7.8 Pile Settlement

Settlement of pile supported boardwalk piers should be small and tolerable for a typical single row pile group. For the typical loads expected for this project, individual maximum pile head settlements are estimated to be in the order of ½ inch.

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 11 of 13

7.9 Test Pile Program

We recommend a test pile program to be conducted to verify driving conditions and refine estimates of pile length. For planning programs, we recommend six (6) test piles be installed; one on each End Bent and one about every 168 feet. The recommended test pile lengths are shown in Table 7, the Pile Data Table. During test pile driving, we recommend the test piles be dynamically monitored with the Pile Driver Analyzer (PDA) or its equivalent to assess pile bearing capacity.

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 12 of 13

Table 7 Pile Data Table

Horizon West Trail - Boardwalk

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

Φ

**Minimum Tip Elevation shall be determined in accordance with Section 455-5.8.

The contractor shall verify the locations of all utilities prior to any pile driving.

All test piles are to be dynamically monitored using the Pile Driving Analyzer or an approved equivalent.

INSTALLATION CRITERIA DESIGN CRITERIA

LOCATION

PILE

SIZE

(IN)

NOMINAL

BEARING

RESISTANCE*

(TONS)

NOMINAL

UPLIFT

RESISTANCE

(TONS)

MIN.

TIP

ELEV.

(FT)

TEST

PILE

LENGTH

(FT)***

REQ’D

JET

ELEV.

(FT)

REQ’D

PREFORM

ELEV.

(FT)

FACTORED

DESIGN

LOAD

(TONS)

FACTORED

DESIGN

UPLIFT

LOAD

(TONS)

DOWN

DRAG

(TONS)

TOTAL

SCOUR

RESIST

(TONS)

NET

SCOUR

RESIST

(TONS)

100 YR

SCOUR

ELEV.

(FT)

Φ

STA. 2013+11.01 TO

STA. 2014+30.00

14 29 N/A ** 46 N/A N/A 18.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.65

STA. 2014+30.00 TO

STA. 2021+49.26

14 29 N/A ** 36 N/A N/A 18.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.65

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Page 13 of 13

7.10 Excavations

All earthworks should be carried out in accordance with current OSHA criteria and regulations.

Excavations should be cut back at appropriate slopes and/or shored as necessary. Excavated materials should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Some temporary dewatering may be required to facilitate excavation work. The discharge from dewatering systems should be handled in accordance with current St. Johns Water Management District regulatory procedures.

8.0 FHWA REPORT CHECKLIST

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

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

NADIC is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data.

The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the anticipated location and type of construction and the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated and does not reflect any variations which may occur among these borings. If any variations become evident during the course of construction, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered.

The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map

Figure 3 USDA/NRCS Soil Map

Figure 4 Potentiometric Surface Map

Figure 5 Boring Location Map

Table 3 Summary of Laboratory Tests

Table 6 Soil Information for FL Pier Input

WBQ

Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

*USCS: Unified Soil Classification System

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Boring No.

Approx.

Station

Approx.

Offset (ft)

Sample Depth

(ft)

Moisture Content

Organic Content

Percent Passing

#200

Atterberg Limits (%)

USCS*

Classification Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

B-1 2012+90 2 LT

7 21 - 6 - - SP-SM

25 34 - 19 45 23 SC

B-2 2014+35 29 RT

9 19 - 31 - - SC

60 25 - 65 31 8 CL

B-3 2016+03 4 RT

20 62 - 99 187 131 CH

50 50 - 19 - - LS

B-4 2017+32 5 RT

5 24 - 25 23 2 SC

30 33 - 17 - - SC

B-5 2018+98 6 LT

15 22 - 17 - - SC

74 30 - 37 30 8 SC

B-6 2020+55 5 RT

7 20 - 31 29 10 SC

35 40 - 19 - - SC

B-7 2021+90 18 LT

40 40 - 27 36 8 SC

65 28 - 35 33 9 SC

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

TABLE 6 - SOIL INFORMATION FOR FL - PIER INPUT

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +113.0 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-1 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): +88.7 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2012+90, 2’ LT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Sandy Clay

Average SPT-N 9 13 78 62

Corrected N (N60) 11 16 97 77

Elevation (feet) +119 to +111 +111 to +71.5 +71.5 to +66.5 +66.5 to +44

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clay Below Water (Matlock)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 30 30 24 24 43 43 0 0

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 -- -- 2 2

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.4 6.4 6.7 6.7 8.7 8.7 8.1 8.1

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

-- -- -- -- -- -- 55.6 55.6

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.004 0.004

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.012 0.012

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

-- -- -- -- -- -- 55.6 55.6

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 5.5 5.5 8 8 20 20 11.7 11.7

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 5.5 5.5 8 8 20 20 11.7 11.7

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.48884 0.48884 0.35552 0.35552 4.85 4.85 0.74859 0.74859

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.07524 0.07524 0.08 0.08 0.97 0.97 0.18711 0.18711

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.48884 0.48884 0.35552 0.35552 4.85 4.85 0.74859 0.74859

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.0029 0.0029 0.0091 0.0091 0.0135 0.0135 0.0176 0.0176

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00587 0.00587 0.009 0.009 0.0088 0.0088 0.0275 0.0275

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00018 0.00018 0.0055 0.0055 0.0102 0.0102 0.0132 0.0132

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +111.7 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-2 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): +98.0 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2014+35, 29’ RT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Clayey Sand

Average SPT-N 15 11 50 70

Corrected N (N60) 19 14 62 87

Elevation (feet) +118.7 to +110.7 +110.7 to +76.2 +76.2 to +61.2 +61.2 to +43.7

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 32 32 23 23 41 41 32 32

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- --

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.9 6.9 6.6 6.6 7.6 7.6 8.7 8.7

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 9.5 9.5 7 7 20 20 20 20

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 9.5 9.5 7 7 20 20 20 20

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.84436 0.84436 0.31108 0.31108 3.1 3.1 1.93314 1.93314

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.12996 0.12996 0.07 0.07 0.62 0.62 0.435 0.435

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.84436 0.84436 0.31108 0.31108 3.1 3.1 1.93314 1.93314

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00501 0.00501 0.0081 0.0081 0.0086 0.0086 0.0121 0.0121

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00702 0.00702 0.0088 0.0088 0.0079 0.0079 0.0125 0.0125

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

0.00031 0.00031 0.0049 0.0049 0.0065 0.0065 0.0139 0.0139

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +112.4 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-3 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): +99.6 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2016+03, 4’ RT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Clayey Sand

Average SPT-N 8 13 41 59

Corrected N (N60) 10 16 51 73

Elevation (feet) +117.4 to +111.4 +111.4 to +74.9 +74.9 to +59.9 +59.9 to +42.4

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 30 30 24 24 38 38 32 32

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.025 0.025 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- --

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.4 6.4 8.7 8.7

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 5 5 8 8 20 20 20 20

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 5 5 8 8 20 20 20 20

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.4444 0.4444 0.35552 0.35552 2.55 2.55 1.62206 1.62206

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.0684 0.0684 0.08 0.08 0.51 0.51 0.365 0.365

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.4444 0.4444 0.35552 0.35552 2.55 2.55 1.62206 1.62206

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00264 0.00264 0.0091 0.0091 0.0071 0.0071 0.0164 0.0164

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00567 0.00567 0.009 0.009 0.0076 0.0076 0.0121 0.0121

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

0.00016 0.00016 0.0055 0.0055 0.0054 0.0054 0.0125 0.0125

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +112.7 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-4 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): +100.4 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2017+32, 5’ RT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Clayey Sand

Average SPT-N 12 14 50 61

Corrected N (N60) 15 17 62 76

Elevation (feet) +117.7 to +113.7 +113.7 to +70.2 +70.2 to +60.2 +60.2 to +42.7

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 31 31 24 24 41 41 32 32

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- --

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 7.6 7.6 8.7 8.7

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 20 20 20 20

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 20 20 20 20

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.6666 0.6666 0.37774 0.37774 3.1 3.1 1.68872 1.68872

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.1026 0.1026 0.085 0.085 0.62 0.62 0.38 0.38

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.6666 0.6666 0.37774 0.37774 3.1 3.1 1.68872 1.68872

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00396 0.00396 0.0096 0.0096 0.0086 0.0086 0.0157 0.0157

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00652 0.00652 0.0092 0.0092 0.0079 0.0079 0.0122 0.0122

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

0.00024 0.00024 0.0058 0.0058 0.0065 0.0065 0.0128 0.0128

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +113.1 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-5 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): +104.0 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2018+98, 6’ LT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Clayey Sand

Average SPT-N 7 15 50 64

Corrected N (N60) 9 19 62 79

Elevation (feet) +118.2 to +114.2 +114.2 to +70.7 +70.7 to +60.7 +60.7 to +43.2

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 29 29 24 24 41 41 32 32

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.025 0.025 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- --

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.4 6.4 6.9 6.9 7.6 7.6 8.7 8.7

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 4.5 4.5 9.5 9.5 20 20 20 20

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 4.5 4.5 9.5 9.5 20 20 20 20

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.39996 0.39996 0.42218 0.42218 3.1 3.1 1.75538 1.75538

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.06156 0.06156 0.095 0.095 0.62 0.62 0.395 0.395

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.39996 0.39996 0.42218 0.42218 3.1 3.1 1.75538 1.75538

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00238 0.00238 0.0105 0.0105 0.0086 0.0086 0.0148 0.0148

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00544 0.00544 0.0094 0.0094 0.0079 0.0079 0.0123 0.0123

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

0.00014 0.00014 0.0063 0.0063 0.0065 0.0065 0.013 0.013

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +113.2 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-6 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): 105.0 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2020+55, 5’ RT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Clayey Sand

Average SPT-N 8 12 50 58

Corrected N (N60) 10 15 62 72

Elevation (feet) +117.8 to +113.8 +113.8 to +75.3 +75.3 to +50.3 +50.3 to +42.8

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 30 30 23 23 41 41 32 32

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.025 0.025 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- --

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.6 7.6 8.7 8.7

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 5 5 7.5 7.5 20 20 20 20

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 5 5 7.5 7.5 20 20 20 20

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.4444 0.4444 0.3333 0.3333 3.1 3.1 1.59984 1.59984

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.0684 0.0684 0.075 0.075 0.62 0.62 0.36 0.36

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.4444 0.4444 0.3333 0.3333 3.1 3.1 1.59984 1.59984

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00264 0.00264 0.0086 0.0086 0.0086 0.0086 0.0166 0.0166

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00567 0.00567 0.0089 0.0089 0.0079 0.0079 0.0121 0.0121

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

0.00016 0.00016 0.0052 0.0052 0.0065 0.0065 0.0125 0.0125

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 February 26, 2024

NADIC

Note: 1– Concrete Piles (14-inch, 18-inch and 24-inch Square PPC Pile) 2– Closed End Steel Pipe Piles (24-inch Steel Pipe Pile) 3– Steel H-Piles (14x117 Steel H-Pile)

Project Name: Horizon West Trail Phase I – Boardwalk Bridge Name: - Elevation Datum: NAVD-88 County, State: Orange, Florida Bent No.: - Groundwater Elevation (feet): +113.6 Orange County Contract No: Y21- 806-CH Boring Reference: B-7 Pile Tip Elevation (feet): +104.8 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 Approximate Station & Offset: 2021+90, 18’ LT

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Soil Description Silty Sand Clayey Sand Limestone Cemented Clayey Sand

Average SPT-N 8 9 50 64

Corrected N (N60) 10 11 62 79

Elevation (feet) +118.3 to +114.3 +114.3 to +75.8 +75.8 to +65.8 +65.8 to +43.3

Soil (Type) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese) Sand (Reese) Clayey Sand (Reese)

L A T E R A L

Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Friction Angle, PHI (degree) 30 30 23 23 41 41 32 32

Soil Modulus, RK (kips/in3) 0.025 0.025 0.06 0.06 -- -- -- --

Effective Unit weight, Gamma (kips/in3x10-5)

6.7 6.7 6.4 6.4 7.6 7.6 8.7 8.7

Undrained Shear Strength C (ksi x 10-3)

Major Principal Strain at 50% (E 50) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Major Principal Strain at 100% (E 100) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Average Undrained Shear Strength C avg (ksi x 10-3)

A X I A L

Shear Modulus G (ksi) 5 5 5.5 5.5 20 20 20 20

Poisson’s Ratio NU 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Pile Tip Shear Modulus, QZ1 (G ksi) 5 5 5.5 5.5 20 20 20 20

Pile Tip Poisson’s Ratio, QZ2 (NU) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 1 0.4444 0.4444 0.24442 0.24442 3.1 3.1 1.75538 1.75538

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 2 0.0684 0.0684 0.055 0.055 0.62 0.62 0.395 0.395

Ultimate Pile Tip Resistance QZ3 (ksi) 3 0.4444 0.4444 0.24442 0.24442 3.1 3.1 1.75538 1.75538

T O R S I O N A L

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 1 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00264 0.00264 0.0066 0.0066 0.0086 0.0086 0.0148 0.0148

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 2 = Ultimate Unit Skin

Friction (ksi)

0.00567 0.00567 0.0083 0.0083 0.0079 0.0079 0.0123 0.0123

Shaft_Torsional (Vertical Failure) Shear Stress, TAUF 3 = Ultimate Unit Skin

0.00016 0.00016 0.004 0.004 0.0065 0.0065 0.013 0.013

APPENDIX B

Sheets 1 through 3 Report of SPT Borings

APPENDIX C

Plate 1 Axial Capacity Design Curves

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

A P

P R

O X

IM

A

T E

P

IL

E T

IP

E

L E

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

ESTIMATED DAVISSON CAPACITY (TONS)

AXIAL CAPACITY DESIGN CURVE

HORIZON WEST TRAIL- BOARDWALK

14-INCH PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES (PCP)

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

PILE CAPACITY CURVES HORIZON

WEST TRAIL

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

NADIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL

CONSULTANTS

DRAWN: MB

SCALE: NOTED

PROJECT. No:

PR.GEO-RD21034

CHKD: GNN DATE: 04/11/2023 PLATE: 1

LEGEND

NOTES:

1) THE ESTIMATED DAVISSON CAPACITY REPRESENTS THE THEORETICAL

FAILURE CAPACITY OF A DRIVEN PILE. TO OBTAIN THE PILE TIP ELEVATIONS,

ONE SHOULD ENTER THE RECOMMENDED DAVISSON DESIGN CAPACITY CURVE

USING A NOMINAL BEARING RESISTANCE VALUE. THE NOMINAL BEARING

RESISTANCE IS COMPUTED BY DIVIDING THE SUM OF THE FACTORED DESIGN

LOAD, SCOUR RESISTANCE, AND DOWNDRAG BY THE APPROPIATE

PERFORMANCE FACTOR Ø BELOW WITH > 5% DYNAMIC TESTING.

Ø = 0.75 BASED ON DYNAMIC TESTING AND ANALYSIS & STATIC LOAD TEST

Ø = 0.65 BASED ON PILE DYNAMIC TESTING AND ITS ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D

FB-Deep Output Files

Florida Bridge Software Institute Date: April 07, 2023 Shaft and Pile Analysis (FB‐Deep v.3.1.0) Time: 10:41:29

General Information:

Input file: .....Project Working File\Analysis\FB‐Deep\Boardwalk FB Deep_B‐1.in Project number: PR.GEO‐RD21034 Job name: Horizon West Trail Engineer: MB Units: English

Analysis Information:

Analysis Type: SPT

Soil Information:

Boring date: 3/6/23, Boring Number: B‐1 Station number: 42+74 Offset: 2

Ground Elevation: 119.000(ft)

Hammer type: Safety Hammer

ID Depth No. of Blows Soil Type

(ft) (Blows/ft) 1 0.00 7.00 3‐ Clean sand 2 1.50 4.00 3‐ Clean sand 3 3.00 8.00 3‐ Clean sand 4 3.10 0.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 5 4.50 18.00 3‐ Clean sand 6 4.60 0.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 7 6.00 9.00 3‐ Clean sand 8 6.10 0.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 9 7.50 8.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 10 12.50 7.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 11 12.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand 12 17.50 7.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 13 17.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand 14 22.50 5.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 15 27.50 5.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 16 27.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand 17 32.50 11.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 18 37.50 12.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 19 37.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand

20 42.50 50.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 21 42.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand 22 47.50 78.00 4‐ Lime Stone/Very shelly sand 23 47.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand 24 52.50 77.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 25 57.50 50.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 26 62.50 50.00 1‐ Plastic Clay 27 62.60 0.00 3‐ Clean sand 28 67.50 83.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand 29 72.50 50.00 2‐ Clay and silty sand

Blowcount Average Per Soil Layer

Layer Starting Bottom Thickness Average Soil Type Num.