ORL_BP-050_60Pct_Design_Report.pdf

© 2025 AVCON, INC.

BP-050 ORL RUNWAY 7-25

REHABILITATION & RELATED WORK

60% Design - Engineer’s Report

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority

Orlando, Florida

FAA AIP No. X-XX-XXXX-XXX-XXXX | FDOT FM No. XXXXXX-X-XX-XX

February 2025

Prepared by: AVCON, INC.

Orlando Office

5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite #200 Orlando, FL 32822

Prepared for: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority Orlando Executive Airport

265 Rickenbacker Dr.

Orlando, FL 32803

BP-050 ORL Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation & Related Work Design Report

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

Orlando, Florida

FAA AIP No. X-XX-XXXX-XXX-XXXX FDOT FM No. XXXXXX-X-XX-XX

February 2025

Prepared for:

Orlando Executive Airport 265 Rickenbacker Dr.

Orlando, FL 32803

Prepared by:

AVCON, INC.

Orlando Office

5555 E. Michigan Street Suit #200 Orlando, Florida 32822

Report Authors

Daniel J. Nickols, Jr., P.E.

AVCON, INC.

Senior Project Manager, Engineer of Record

Eric Bain, PE, MBA

E. R. Bain & Associates, LLC President, CEO

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Proposed Project Scope of Work

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Report

1.3 Airside Facilities

1.4 Environmental Consideration

1.5 Safety Considerations

2.0 Subsurface Investigation

2.1 Scope of Investigation

2.2 Field and Laboratory Soil Testing

3.0 Pavement Design

3.1 Pavement Design Calculations

4.0 Basis of Design

4.1 Pavement Geometry

4.2 Surface Gradients on Pavement

4.3 Grading Considerations and Safety Areas

4.4 Pavement Markings

4.5 Drainage Design

4.6 Utility Design and Relocations

4.7 Airfield Lighting, Signage, Electrical, Homeruns, and Vault Modifications

5.0 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

6.0 References

7.0 Appendices

Appendix A Geotechnical Field Investigation Report

Appendix B Topographic Survey Drawings

Appendix C FAARFIELD Pavement Section Reports

1.0 Introduction

2024.070.02 | February 2025

60% Engineer’s Report Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

1.0 Introduction

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) is located approximately 3 miles east of downtown Orlando, Florida, and is owned and operated by the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (“GOAA” or “the Authority”). As stated in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Update Narrative Report (W- 334), ORL was first opened in 1928, and served as Orlando’s only commercial service airport until 1962. Today, ORL accommodates a range of general aviation activities, including corporate/business, air taxi/charter, air cargo, law enforcement/public safety, medical/air ambulance, news media, military training, and recreational aircraft.

Runway 7-25 is the primary runway at ORL. With a length of 6,004 feet and a width of 150 feet, it has precision approaches for both ends (including an instrument landing system (ILS) and a Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) for Runway 7 and ILS (Glide Slope (GS) and Localizer (LOC)) for Runway 25), The runway provides the airport with the capability to support all types of executive/corporate aircraft operations. The Runway 7 end is serviced by a two-box precision approach path indicator (PAPI) while the Runway 25 end is serviced by a four-box PAPI.

Runway 7-25 (Runway Design Code C-II) was completed in 1961 and was last rehabilitated in 2001. This last rehabilitation has now exceeded its 20-year design life. The pavement condition index (PCI) value is just now hitting the threshold for pavement rehabilitation, PCI = 65; however, the existing pavement has held up extremely well for its age.

The asphalt distresses present on Runway 7-25 are primarily age and environmental-related. The observed asphalt pavement distresses included low and medium-severity block cracking, wash boarding and blistering, longitudinal and transverse cracks, and low and medium-severity weathering. These pavement distresses are causing raveling of the asphalt surface, which is creating an increased risk of foreign object debris (FOD).

1.1 Proposed Project Scope of Work

The scope of work for this Project includes asphalt milling and repaving of Runway 7-25, replacement of Runway 7-25 lighting, signage, and associated electrical infrastructure with light-emitting diode (LED) technology, milling and repaving of Runway 13-31 within the Runway 7-25 Runway Safety Area (RSA), minor milling and resurfacing at taxiway connectors to provide smooth transitions from Runway 7-25 pavement, removal of excess pavement in the runway/runway intersection and Runway 7-25/Taxiway E intersection, replacement and relocation of the Runway 25 Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) and approach end wind cone, replacement/modifications to taxiway lighting, signage, electrical infrastructure as needed for the excess pavement demolition in the Taxiway E intersection, and replacement of the Runway 7’s 2-Box incandescent PAPI system with a 4-Box LED PAPI system subject to evaluation of the critical design/clearance surfaces. Geometry modifications and corrections for taxiway connectors are generally not included in the scope project and will be addressed with upcoming capital improvement projects (CIPs). Demolition of excess pavement within the Taxiway E intersection shall make Taxiway E north of Runway 7-25 into compliance with the current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards per Advisory Circular (AC) 150-5300-13 Airport Design – Change 1.

Further, associated work elements will include airfield electrical vault modifications and upgrades, airfield pavement markings, stormwater drainage modifications, and stormwater permitting through St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Also included in the scope of this project is design Airports Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) Survey of Runway 7-25 and its associated Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) to identify obstructions that may require mitigation as part of this project delivery.

This project offers the Airport an opportunity to not only address the rehabilitation of the asphalt pavement, but also to capitalize on the construction window to upgrade the airfield lighting, and enhance airport operations and safety, while minimizing the time-sensitive runway and taxiway closures. The proposed milling and repaving operations on Runway 13-31 within the Runway 7-25 RSA will allow the future rehabilitation of Runway 13-31 to be completed without operational impacts to Runway 7-25.

Figure 1 shows the limits of work and project scope elements. During design, the project scope may have to be modified

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) due to budget limitations. The currently anticipated Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation package includes:

• Pavement Rehabilitation for Runway 7-25.

• New airfield lighting and signage for Runway 7-25.

• Mill and Overlay of Runway 13-31 to 10’ outside of the Runway 7-25 RSA.

• Minor milling and resurfacing at taxiway connectors to provide smooth transitions from Runway 7-25 pavement

• Airfield electrical vault modifications and improvements.

• Replacement and relocation of the Runway 25 REILs to the runway threshold.

• Potential Tree Clearing/Trimming and/or obstruction mitigation within the Runway Primary AGIS Surface and Runway 7-25 PAPI Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) and Light Signal Clearance Surface (LSCS).

• Minor grading enhancements for modified infield areas.

• Inspection and Rehabilitation of Drainage Pipes under Runway 7-25.

• Stormwater design and permitting with SJRWMD.

Figure 1: Project Scope Of Services – ORL Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation and Related Work

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the basis of design for the Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation and related work at Orlando Executive Airport (ORL). This report will address and make recommendations in the following areas:

• Results and analysis of the subsurface investigation programs

• Design Standards

• Pavement Design

• Pavement Geometry

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

• Surface Gradients

• Stormwater Permitting

• Drainage

• Safety Areas

• Pavement Markings

• Construction Safety and Phasing

• Runway and Taxiway Lighting

• Guidance Signs

• Airfield NAVAIDs, including REILS and PAPI modifications

• Airfield Electrical Vault modifications

• Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

1.3 Airside Facilities

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) is served by two asphalt runways, Runway 7-25 and Runway 13-31, with parallel taxiways, Taxiway A and Taxiway E, respectively. The airport has an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) that operates 15 hours each day from 7 am to 10 pm. During the hours that the ATCT is not operating, aircrafts use the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) of 118.7 MHz.

Figure 2: Airport Diagram

Runway 7-25 is 6,004’ long by 150’ wide and blast pads on each end. The landing surface is painted with precision instrument runway markings and equipped with High Intensity Runway Edge Lights (HIRL). Runway 13-31 is 4,625’ long

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) by 100’ wide, with 15’ wide paved shoulders and blast pads on each. The landing surface is painted with non-precision runway markings and equipped with HIRLs.

According to the current FAA accepted ALP, the pavement strength rating for Runway 7-25 is 115,000 pounds for dual tandem wheel landing gear, 100,000 pounds for dual wheel landing gear, and 45,000 pounds for single wheel landing gear. The pavement strength rating for Runway 13-31 is 35,000 pounds for single wheel landing gear and 60,000 pounds for dual wheel landing gear.

Taxiways A, A3, A5, B, E, E5, F, and G provide access from FBO apron areas to the rest of the airfield. Taxiways vary in width from 35’ to 75’, are painted with centerline markings, and are equipped with Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL). The airport has two aircraft parking aprons, one on the northeast corner and one on the southwest corner.

1.4 Environmental Consideration

This project is anticipated to have no direct or secondary wetland impacts. Permitting shall be submitted to St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), showing that no wetlands are within the vicinity of the project limits.

In addition, as a part of the Projects National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, a Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) will be applied for. A CATEX is an environmental documentation for types of projects that normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. Additional details of the CATEX application shall be provided in future submittals.

1.5 Safety Considerations

The work required by this project will result in asphalt milling and resurfacing on Runway 7-25, minor taxiway milling and resurfacing to promote smooth tie-ins to Runway 7-25, milling and resurfacing of Runway 13-31 within the Runway 7- 25 RSA. In addition, the project also includes electrical work along Runway 7-25, including edge lights, signage, REILs, PAPIs, cables, and vault modifications. The work shall require closure of Runway 7-25 whenever work is conducted on the runway. Runway 13-31 shall be closed whenever work is conducted within the RSA of Runway 7-25. Runway and taxiway closures shall be performed during nighttime hours between the hours of 10:00 PM – 6:00 AM unless otherwise specified in the Construction Safety and Phasing Plan (CSPP) Drawings.

The Contractor's access to the site and the designated work areas were determined with safety as the top priority. The Contractor shall be required to comply with all safety requirements outlined in the FAA AC 150/5370-2G Operational Safety on Airports During Construction (Current Edition). They shall be responsible for furnishing, erecting, and maintaining all lights, barricades, lighted closed runway markers, and warning signs and markings for closed and hazardous areas. Additionally, all motorized vehicles or pieces of equipment will be identified in conformance with the Contract Specifications.

The Contractor shall be required to comply with the phasing plan as stipulated on the Final Contract Drawings. This project will be constructed in three phases and various work areas to allow for construction progress while limiting the impacts to aircraft operations on the airfield. A detailed Construction Safety Phasing Plan (CSPP) was developed for this project with designated construction work areas to depict open/closed pavement areas, taxi routes, Contractor access points, staging areas, and barricade locations. Refer to the CSPP sheets located within the Contract Drawings.

For this preliminary submittal, the phase and work areas can be generally described as follows.

Work Areas: The Project will be broken into distinct work areas for each Phase II Alternate – see below for additional information regarding the Alternates. The work areas are as follows:

Phase II – Alternate 1 – Nightly Closures, Weekdays, 8PM – 6AM:

1. Work Area 1A includes all civil and electrical work along Runway 7-25 west of Runway 13-31’s RSA

2. Work Area 1B includes all civil and electrical work within the intersection of Runway 7-25 and Runway 13-31, and up to the eastern TOFA limit for Taxiway E. This work area is divided into Work Areas 1B-1, 1B-2, 1B-3, and 1B-4 to encourage swiftness in the overnight paving operations and limit impacts. Work in Work Area 1B shall not be performed concurrently with Work Areas A and C.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

3. Work Area 1C includes all civil and electrical work along Runway 7-25 east of Runway 13-31’s RSA.

4. Work Area 1D includes all electrical work north of Runway 7-25’s Runway Object Free Area (ROFA), including in the area surrounding the general path of the electrical homerun duct bank back to the existing airfield electrical vault.

Phase II – Alternate 2 – Weekend Long Closures; Friday, 8PM – Monday, 6PM:

1. Work Area 2A includes all civil and electrical work along Runway 7-25 west of Runway 13-31’s RSA

2. Work Area 2B includes all civil and electrical work within the intersection of Runway 7-25 and Runway 13-31, and up to the eastern TOFA limit for Taxiway E.

3. Work Area 2C includes all civil and electrical work along Runway 7-25 east of Runway 13-31’s RSA.

4. Work Area 2D includes all electrical work north of Runway 7-25’s Runway Object Free Area (ROFA), including in the area surrounding the general path of the electrical homerun duct bank back to the existing airfield electrical vault.

Figure 3: Construction Work Areas

Phasing: The project shall be completed in three phases. Phase I shall be a mobilization and procurement phase for the Contractor to submit all shop drawings for review and approval by the Engineer, as well as allowing the necessary lead times for materials. Phase II work shall include civil work west of Runway 13-31 RSA on Runway 7-25, installation of new LED high intensity runway edge/REILS/Wind Cone/PAPIs, new counterpoise and grounding systems, new runway distance remaining signs, airfield electrical duct bank and homerun installations, taxiway edge lighting and guidance

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) signs and Vault modifications. Phase III work shall include only runway grooving and final striping.

The project will have two (2) alternates for Phase II based on construction closures. Alternate 1 shall be completed under strict time constraints to minimize the operational impacts to the airport using nightly closures from 8:00 PM – 6:00 AM. This Alternate shall include:

• Proposed completion of the full project scope utilizing nightly closures of Runway 7-25 (and Runway 13-31 when applicable) to complete the work within each of the 4 main work areas – Work Area 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D.

• This includes all paving, grading, drainage, electrical, and NAVAID scope of work.

Alternate 2 shall be completed during weekend extended closures from Friday night at 8:00 PM to Monday morning at 6:00 AM to facilitate expedited runway milling and paving operations. Use of Alternate 2 will depend on final approval from the Airport, tenants and users of the airfield. A meeting was held with this group on February 21, 2025. Final changes to phasing will be details in the 90% submittal. This phase shall include:

• Work in Work Areas 2A and 2C will require closures of only Runway 7-25, while Runway 13-31 will remain open and operational for the duration of the Runway 7-25 closure.

• Work in Work Area 2B will require closures of both Runway 13-31 and Runway 7-25 and pose a more critical impact to airport operations.

• The weekend closures will primarily be utilized to facilitate mill and overlay operations. If, for some reason, mill and overlay operations cannot be performed during a planned weekend closure (equipment mechanical issues or weather unconducive to paving), the weekend closure will be canceled and rescheduled. Electrical work, while not prohibited during a weekend closure, is considered secondary to not impacting airport operations in the hierocracy of the project.

Furthermore, the project can be considered to have three subphases in terms of the prosecution of the work:

• Phase I- Mobilization, including Shop Drawing Submittal and material procurement (light cans, airfield signs, etc.)

• Phase II- Construction through Substantial Completion, which excludes Runway Grooving and Final Markings

• Phase III- Runway Grooving, Final Markings and Project Closeout

It is essential for Airport Management to coordinate aircraft and airport operations as needed to accommodate the construction activities outlined in this project. The Contractor shall be required to give notice to the Engineer of Record 72 hours in advance of any construction activities to allow coordination with Airport Operations. Advancement to the subsequent work area shall not proceed without prior approval from the Engineer of Record. The Contractor shall also be responsible for submitting and updating a proposed work schedule, which shall be reviewed by the Airport Director and the Engineer of Record to ensure minimal delays to aircraft movements and airport operations.

For additional information refer to Attachment “A” to GP-80 Execution and Progress (CSPP) and the Construction Safety and Phasing Plan included in the Contract Documents and the Contract Drawings, respectively.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

2.0 Subsurface Investigation

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC) conducted the geotechnical field investigation for this project in December 2024. In the next submittal, a completed Geotechnical Engineering Services Report will be included in Appendix A of this report for the complete details of the subsurface exploration conducted by Cal-Tech Testing, Inc.

during both studies.

2.1 Scope of Investigation

Site layout and sampling procedures are outlined in FAA AC 150/5320-6G Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation.

GEC scope includes:

• Drilling a total of up to 50 six-inch diameter pavement cores through the asphalt and base material at the locations shown on Figure 4.

• All core holes will be patched with in-kind materials.

• Perform a total of 10 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of 10 feet below the existing grade along the outside edge of the runway to evaluate subgrade soils and groundwater tables. These 10 borings will be left open for 24 hours to obtain stabilized groundwater table readings and will then be backfilled with soil cuttings.

• Sample a total of 4 shallow soil samples (1 foot below grade) from just off the existing runway for California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing for the pavement subgrade. Conduct CBR tests for use in the pavement evaluation and design.

• Perform routine laboratory soil classification tests (moisture content, Atterberg Limits and/or sieve analysis tests) on soil samples to supplement visual soil classification.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

Figure 4: Geotechnical Scope of Work

The geotechnical engineering report will address the following project elements:

• Document pavement conditions (asphalt and base thickness, and any crack depths) based on GEC’s evaluation of the pavement cores.

• Provide photographs of all cores.

• Document subsurface conditions encountered during the field investigation, including detailed descriptions of all field and laboratory test methods and results.

• Provide current and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels.

• Provide CBR test results.

• Develop geotechnical engineering (pavement rehabilitation) recommendations to guide new pavement design.

2.2 Field and Laboratory Soil Testing

Shall be provided in the next Submittal.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

3.0 Pavement Design

The flexible pavement design is in accordance with FAA AC 150/5320-6F, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation.

FAA developed software, FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layered Design (FAARFIELD) version 2.1.1, was utilized for this design. Use of this program is mandatory for pavement design and requires input for average annual departures at ORL for a design life of 20 years for full strength pavement.

3.1 Pavement Design Calculations

For the Runway 7-25 pavement design, the inputs for FAARFIELD for determining the pavement design include the fleet mix with average annual departures, subgrade and subbase CBR values, type of subbase material, and asphalt modulus.

As stated in Section 2.0 Subsurface Investigation, the Geotechnical Engineering Report is not complete at this time.

Further, we are in the infancy of preparing the aircraft fleet mix for the pavement design. However, there is enough information for us to make conservative assumptions regarding the proposed thickness of the asphalt for the Runway 7-25 project.

In 2023, GOAA authorized Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) to prepare a Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Alternatives Analysis Report. The report discussed the pavement design alternatives to be considered for the project. KHA identified a fleet mix based on information from the Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC) database from 2021/2022.

That fleet mix indicated very few flights from aircraft over 104,000 lbs. The draft forecast that was provided by Ricondo & Associates, Inc. more recently for the 2025 Master Plan Update includes updates to the fleet mix and the critical aircraft operations from calendar year 2023. This data was gathered from the FAA Operational Network (OPSNET) and GOAA’s Airport Noise Monitoring System (ANOMS). The resulting critical aircraft operations table is shown below from that report.

Figure 5: Fleet Forecast, Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Et Al, ORL 2024 Master Plan Update

Unfortunately, this information does not provide a detailed breakdown of the aircraft types and sizes within each category. While this data is not crucial for the Airport Master Planning process, it is valuable for the development of the

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) proposed pavement design.

Based on discussions with Gary Trotta at ORL, the Airport has a Passport Request (PPR) System for any aircraft over 100,000 lbs, which requires aircraft to get approval from the Airport. Below is a list of the aircraft that have been encountered, with the G650ER, G700, G550, G650, and Global series including the 7500 being the heaviest on a recurring basis.

Table 1: Aircraft Fleet Weight

Aircraft Type Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) in Pounds

G650 100,003

BBJ 115,000

A320NEO 124,000

BBJ 171,000

G650ER 103,500

GL7T 114,850

E190 120,152

B738 127,000

G650 103,600

GL7500 114,000

If it is conservatively assume that all aircraft falling under the C-III, D-III, and D-IV categories can be classified as D-150 (150,000 lb, Dual Gear Configuration) for the asphalt pavement design, this will result in a cumulative damage factor of

1.0 and control the overall outcome of the pavement design for ORL Runway 7-25. The remainder of the traffic at the airport was placed into the appropriate categories for the pavement design analysis.

For consistency, KHA indicated a conservative design CBR of 15 in their 2023 report. That CBR value was used for this analysis. The existing pavement section at the airport is roughly 8” of asphalt on 6” of lime rock base course.

Figure 6: Runway 7-25 Pavement Cores, Kimley Horne and Associates Et Al, Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Alternatives Analysis Report

If it is assumed that 4” of asphalt will be milled, the resulting overlay thickness is 4.8”. It can be assumed that this overlay thickness would be a nominal 5” thickness. Figure 6 shows pavement core data for Runway 7-25.

During the 2001 rehabilitation of Runway 7-25, according to the KHA pavement analysis report, the Runway was milled a variable depth, and the asphalt overlay thickness ranged from 1.5 to 3” in depth. An alternative to increasing the proposed overlay thickness to a nominal 5” could be reducing the milling depth from 4” to 3” and holding the overlay thickness at 4”, which would provide the additional 1”, without impacting the project budget. It should be noted that since the previous overlay was roughly 1.5” to 3”, milling 3” during this project could result in scabbing/scaling. Also, if there is delamination between the previous overlay and the underlying asphalt, it would be removed in its entirety, exposing a potentially smooth surface that would make adhesion of the new overlay challenging. If this was encountered, an additional 0.5” of milling/scarification of the surface would be implemented. From a design standpoint, additional assumptions for milling and/or placement of asphalt leveling courses would be included.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

4.0 Basis of Design

This project is designed in accordance with applicable FAA Advisory Circulars, and generally accepted code, standards, and practices. The basis of design for the proposed improvements is presented in the following sections.

4.1 Pavement Geometry

The geometric design criteria for this project are based on FAA requirements as presented in FAA AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design. The critical or design aircraft, Owner’s needs, Airport operations information, and demand forecasting were all taken into consideration during the pavement geometry design, along with utilizing the AviPLAN Turn Pro design software.

The design for the proposed runway, taxiway, and associated improvements satisfies minimum FAA airport geometric design criteria for Aircraft Approach Category D (AAC – D), Airplane Design Group III (ADG III) (D-III), and Taxiway Design Group 3 (TDG-3).

Refer to the Geometry and Paving Plan Series of the Contract Drawings for more information regarding the pavement geometry.

4.2 Surface Gradients on Pavement

The surface grade design for this project also follows the guidelines provided in FAA AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design.

For an Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) C runway, the maximum longitudinal grade is 1.5%, however, longitudinal grades may not exceed ±0.8% in the first and last quarter of the runway, or the first and last 2,500 feet, whichever is less. Vertical curves for an AAC C runway requirements also allow a maximum grade change of ±1.50%, however, no grade changes can occur in the first and last quarter of the runway, or first and last 2,500 feet, whichever is less.

Figure 7: Longitudinal Grade Limitations for Aircraft Approach Categories C, D, and E

Reviewing the existing Runway 7-25 profile revealed various design constraints relating to maximum allowable grade changes, maximum longitudinal grades, and the Runway's line of sight. To address these existing conditions, it was determined that the design for the Runway 7-25 would raise the centerline profile 1” while smoothing out longitudinal and transverse grades in key areas to optimize the surface gradients within the 6,004’ of the Runway 7-25 pavement rehabilitation.

For taxiway pavements, FAA AC 150/5300-13B states a maximum longitudinal grade of 1.50% for AAC’s C, D, and E. Minimum longitudinal grades, however, are desired, and changes in longitudinal grade should be avoided unless no other reasonable alternative is available. The maximum longitudinal grade change is 3.0%. When grade changes are necessary, the vertical curves are parabolic.

4.3 Grading Considerations and Safety Areas

The FAA defines the runway or taxiway safety area as a surface alongside the pavement prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to an airplane unintentionally departing the pavement. The safety area must be cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts or humps. The safety area must be adequately drained, and be capable, under dry conditions, of supporting aircraft rescue vehicles, firefighting equipment vehicles, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft. Additionally, no objects shall be located within the safety areas except those that are fixed by function.

Figure 8: Transverse Grade Limitations for Runways

The grading design will have several different considerations such as FAA design criteria, existing drainage conveyance, Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) existing utility crossings, proposed utility crossings, proposed drainage infrastructure, and planning for future development. The existing turf areas are generally well-graded within the proposed project limits. Areas of previously undisturbed terrain will require significant modifications to provide adequate drainage and compliance with FAA transverse grading requirements.

Figure 9: Taxiway Transverse Gradients

While the FAA transverse grade requirements typically recommend the steepest slopes practical to promote improved drainage, the opposite is true in the state of Florida. The Florida Water Management Districts specifically recommend the flattest slopes practical to prevent erosions and scouring. Florida’s primarily sandy soils are exceptionally well drained and at a higher risk for erosion and washouts during heavy rainfall events. Flatter slopes, still within FAA grading requirements, shall be implemented throughout this design.

4.4 Pavement Markings

Markings within the project limits shall be in accordance with FAA AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings. All runway markings shall be white with black outlines. All taxiway centerline markings shall be yellow with black outlines.

Glass beads shall be used as reflective media to enhance the conspicuity of the surface markings. Type III glass beads shall be used for all white and yellow surface markings. Type I glass beads shall be used for all red surface markings.

Glass beads shall not be applied to any black paint, as stated in the AC.

4.5 Drainage Design

Minimal Drainage work is anticipated for the project and shall be limited to video inspection of the 36” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) that crosses under Runway 7-25 pavement section near the Runway 7 End at approximately Station 7+00 at the centerline. If the inspection reveals any issues with the pipe, it is expected that the pipe will need to be cleaned and a cured-in-place pipe liner will be installed. An allowance account will be provided to have the Contractor perform this work during the project instead of having extended closures during the design phase to clean the pipe and document the remediation needed.

However, if any drainage issues are identified, they will be designed in accordance with current FAA AC150/5320-5D, Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

Airport Drainage Design as well as in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Drainage Design Standards and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Standards. Based on the scope of the project, a full Environmental Resource Program (ERP) is not anticipated. A Minor Modification shall be submitted in place.

4.6 Utility Design and Relocations

Utilities other than airfield electrical are not anticipated to be impacted by this project. Existing FAA utility installations on the airfield shall be protected in place.

4.7 Airfield Lighting, Signage, Electrical, Homeruns, and Vault Modifications

4.7.1. Runway Lighting and Signage

All existing quartz/incandescent Runway 7-25 edge light fixtures, threshold light fixtures, and signs shall be replaced with new high Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL) LED fixtures mounted on new base cans and concrete foundations.

New Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting (MITL) edge light fixtures shall be installed to accommodate taxiway geometry improvements on Taxiway E. The existing 2-Box PAPI system for the Runway 7 End approach shall be replaced with a new 4-Box LED PAPI system. The location of the existing wind cone on the Runway 25 approach end is out of tolerance with FAA criteria. A new LED wind cone and foundation shall be installed in a new location that is in accordance with FAA Advisory Circulars. Similarly, the existing Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) are out of FAA tolerance. New LED REILs shall be installed to comply with FAA Advisory Circulars.

4.7.2. Conduit, Cable, and Lightning Protection

New cable, conduit, and counterpoise lightning protection shall be installed between all light fixtures. All L-824 5KV cable associated with RW 7-25 shall be replaced in full, including homeruns back to the vault. In base cans 3 feet minimum of cable slack length shall be installed on each side of each connector. When the cable is pulled through a base can without a connector a minimum of 6 feet of cable slack shall be installed.

All conduits and raceway systems shall be U.L. listed. All underground conduits shall be schedule 40 PVC or schedule 80 PVC duct for directional bored sections. PVC conduit bends shall be per NEC Chapter 9 Table 2. The design will require the installation of a 200-pound polypropylene string/rope in all ducts. The end of the pull rope shall be securely attached to the pull iron. A duct plug shall still be installed in all spare ducts. The use of nylon, natural fiber rope, or steel pull wire will not be permitted. A magnetic, detectable tape 3 inches wide, labeled "ELECTRIC LINE BELOW", message as applicable, shall be installed 8 inches below finished grade above all conduits, ducts and duct banks not installed under pavement. The Contractor will be required to record as-constructed location of ducts installed under the pavement on the record drawings.

Ground rods shall be installed and bonded to the counterpoise every 500 feet and at sign bases for resiliency against lightning strikes. #2 AWG solid copper counterpoise shall be bonded to each ground rod and installed above all conduit sections. In addition, lightning arrestors shall be installed every 2000 feet of cable for increased protection against lightning strikes.

4.7.3. Constant Current Regulators

The installation of LED fixtures shall decrease the KW load required from the existing Constant Current Regulators (CCRs). The RW 7-25 and RW 7 PAPI CCRs shall be replaced based on new LED light fixture load calculations. The conduit, conductors, and circuit breakers associated with each CCR shall be removed and replaced. When replacing CCRs that are connected to an Airfield Lighting Control Monitoring System, the ALCMS must be modified by the vendor and the contractor to interface the new CCRs into the existing system.

The constant current regulators (CCR) shall be L-829 type, air cooled, ferro-resonant, dry type, with 120-volt AC internal control, sized as indicated on the contract drawings. The input power shall be 480 Volt single phase for all regulators. The output shall be 6.6 AMP for all regulators. The units shall have integral primary switches and shall be five (5) brightness. The regulators shall have local control switches for ON/OFF and all brightness steps and a

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) faceplate digital output RMS ammeter and faceplate digital output RMS voltmeter. Each regulator shall have integral input and output lightning protection. Manufacturer: ADB or approved equivalent.

Constant Current Regulator must be compatible with existing ADB airfield lighting control computer system and exactly duplicate all monitoring and control functions that currently exist at the vault. Regulators shall have integral distributive control equipment and monitoring devices for ALCS interface with existing ADB system. If external control and monitoring devices are used, the Contractor must submit a proposed installation method for approval, and the cost of the additional material and labor required for installation including mounting hardware, wiring, conduit, etc. will be at no additional cost to the owner.

Feeders, branch circuits, raceways, AC power to the CCR are a component part of the vault pay item. Control cables, raceway, terminations, etc., are a component part of the airfield lighting control system pay item.

4.7.4. Electrical Junction Structures

In the project scope, Manholes shall be replaced with Junction Can Plazas, where indicated in the plans, and cables properly routed through the home run duct bank system to the Airfield Lighting Vault. The can plaza system isolates the series circuits from collateral damage. The use of a junction can plaza, in lieu of a manhole, also mitigates the need for airport personnel to be exposed to the hazards associated with entering a confined space.

There are existing manholes, duct banks and cable runs that contain active cables. These cables must not be damaged. Extreme care will be taken to protect the cables in the area of pavement that is being altered. We have included a split duct detail for installation over direct buried cables or extension of existing duct for 5 feet out from the new edge of pavement.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

5.0 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost

The project will be prepared in two separate Bid Schedules- Bid Schedule A and Bid Schedule B - (See Figure 10), to allow GOAA the maximum flexibility in receiving Bids that will align with the project budget. Bid Schedule A will be the full project scope without any breakouts or add-alternates. This will be done to provide the Contractor with an opportunity to include more competitive pricing with the assumption that the project will not be broken into smaller pieces. Bid Schedule B will be broken into a Base Bid and three (3) add-alternates.

The final proposed breakout of Bid Schedules is as follows:

o Bid Schedule A Full project scope (entire civil and electrical/NAVAID scope) The project will be presented in Bid Schedule A as a single overall project to ensure that we have an option to award the full project should pricing be conducive, and this will allow the Contractor an opportunity to easily provide value pricing knowing that there would be no later breakouts of scope.

o Bid Schedule B Base Bid

• Full electrical/NAVAID scope of work for the project

• Civil/Site scope Starting at the Runway 7 End and Ending at the Western Edge of the Runway 13-31 Runway Safety Area

Add Alternate 1

• Civil scope starting at the Western Edge of the Runway 13-31 Safety Area (eastern edge of the Base Bid) and extending just east of the Runway 7-25/Taxiway E/Taxiway A6 Intersection.

Add Alternate 2

• Civil scope starting at the eastern edge of Add Alternate 1 area and extending east just past Taxiway A3.

Add Alternate 3

• Civil scope starting at the eastern edge of Add Alternate 2 and extending to the Runway 25 end.

A detailed cost breakdown for construction of the project is presented on the following pages for Bid Schedule A and Bid Scheule B. Unit prices are developed from past bid experiences and historical item average costs report by FDOT.

All costs provided are the Engineer’s opinion of costs such as local competition or lack thereof, current economy and bidder’s experience in airport work under FAA funded projects, etc.

Funding for this project will be provided in part by the FAA and the airport itself. A breakdown of the participation of the funding sources will be supplied at a later date.

The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost has been broken out to reflect the options requested by the primary funding partners and includes:

Figure 10: Bid Schedule Breakdown

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

6.0 References

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC No: AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design, Initiated By: AAS-100, Dated: 3/31/2022

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC No: AC 150/5320-5D, Airport Drainage Design, Initiated By: AAS-100, Dated: 8/15/2013

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC No: AC 150/5320-6G, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation, Initiated By: AAS-100, Dated: 06/07/2021

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC No: AC 150/5370-2G, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction, Initiated By: AAS-100, Dated: 12/13/2017

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC No: AC 150/5340-30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, Initiated By: AAS-100, Dated: 2/12/2018

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, AC No: AC 150/5340-1M, Standards for Airport Markings, Initiated By: AAS-100, Dated: 5/10/2019

State of Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Design, FY2025-26 Standard Plans for Road and Bridge Construction, Dated: July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.

State of Florida Department of Transportation, Office of Design, FY2025-26 Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Dated: July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. John’s River Water Management District, Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1 (General and Environmental), Effective June 28, 2024.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. John’s River Water Management District, Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 2 (General and Environmental), Effective June 28, 2024.

Orlando Executive Airport (ORL)

7.0 Appendices

Appendix A

APPENDIX A: GEOTECHNICAL FIELD

INVESTIGATION REPORT

Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

BP-050 ORL RUNWAY 7-25 REHABILITATION

Orlando Executive Airport Orange County, Florida

AVCON Project No. 2014.0070.02 GEC Project No. 5678G

February 13, 2025

AVCON Engineering, Inc.

5555 East Michigan Street, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32822

Attention: Mr. Dan Nickols, P.E.

Senior Project Manager

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

BP-050 ORL RUNWAY 7-25 REHABILITATION

Orlando Executive Airport Orange County, Florida AVCON Project No. 2024.0070.02 GEC Project No. 5678G

Dear Mr. Nickols:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC) is pleased to present this Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of our investigation was to explore pavement and subsurface conditions along Runway 7-25 and to provide this information to aid in pavement rehabilitation design.

This report describes our exploration procedures and exhibits the data obtained during our field and laboratory exploration.

GEC appreciates the opportunity to be of service to AVCON and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) on this project. If you should have any questions concerning the contents of this report, please contact us.

GEC Project No. 5678G ii Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

BP-050 ORL Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation

Very truly yours, GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

919 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, Florida 32814

Jose R. Benitez, Jr., E.I.

Geotechnical Project Engineer

William L. Fox, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida License No. 55385

GEC Project No. 5678G iii Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Table of Contents

1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

2.1 USGS Quadrangle Map

2.2 NRCS Soil Survey

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 SPT Borings

3.2 CBR Sampling

3.3 Pavement Cores

3.4 Temporary Piezometer Installation

3.5 Groundwater Measurements

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 SPT Boring Results

5.2 Pavement Core Results

5.3 CBR Test Results

5.4 Groundwater Levels

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations

7.0 USE OF THIS REPORT

APPENDIX

Figure 1: USGS Quadrangle and NRCS Soil Survey Maps Figure 2: Boring and Pavement Core Location Plan Figure 3: SPT Boring Results

Table 5: Corrosion Series Test Results

Pavement Evaluation and Condition Data Sheets Pavement Core Photographic Logs CBR Test Results Piezometer Monitoring Data Sheet

GEC Project No. 5678G 3 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is located at the Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) at 365 Rickenbacker Drive in Orlando, Orange County, Florida as depicted on Figure 1 in the Appendix. The airport facility currently consists of Runways 7-25 and 13-31 and can support executive/corporate aircraft operations. The primary runway at ORL is 7-25 which was completed in 1961 and has a length of approximately 6,000 linear feet and a width of approximately 150 linear feet. Runway 7-25 was last rehabilitated in 2001 and has shown light to severe asphalt pavement distress along the runway which is causing aircraft safety concerns.

We understand the project will include the rehabilitation of Runway 7-25 by primarily milling and resurfacing. Additionally, the project will include milling and resurfacing the 7-25/13-31 safety area, including lighting and signing improvements.

2.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

To obtain general information on soil and groundwater conditions in the project area, GEC reviewed readily available information about the site including the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida. A summary of this information is presented in the following report sections.

2.1 USGS Quadrangle Map

Based on our review of the USGS Orlando East (1980), Florida Quadrangle Map, and survey data provided by AVCON, the existing Runway 7-25 pavement surface ranges from about elevations +103 to +112 feet NAVD. The project site is depicted on an excerpt of the USGS Orlando East, Florida Quadrangle Map (Figure 1) in the Appendix.

2.2 NRCS Soil Survey

The NRCS Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida was reviewed to obtain near-surface soil and groundwater information at the site. The NRCS Soil Survey map depicts the Urban Land, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Soil Unit No. 50) soil type at the site. Urban Land refers to areas where most of the ground surface is covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings and other impervious surfaces that modify surface/subsurface drainage and obscure or alter the soils so that their identification is not possible. The depth to seasonal high groundwater level for this soil unit is typically dependent upon the functioning of existing drainage systems. The NRCS Soil Survey predicts seasonal high groundwater levels at the site to be greater than 6 feet below the natural ground surface. The NRCS Soil Survey map of the project area is shown on Figure 1 in the Appendix.

GEC Project No. 5678G 4 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

Information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey is very general and may be outdated. It may not therefore be reflective of actual soil and groundwater conditions, particularly if recent development in the site vicinity has modified soil conditions or surface/subsurface drainage. The information obtained from recent soil borings provides a better characterization of actual site conditions.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

In addition to consulting the sources of information previously discussed for regional and site-specific soils data, GEC conducted a subsurface exploration to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions at the project site by performing the following:

• 10 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (B-1 through B-10) to 10 feet deep

• 10 temporary piezometers within the SPT boreholes

• 50 pavement cores (C-1 to C-50)

• 4 laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests (CBR-1 to CBR-4)

The boring, pavement core, and CBR sample locations were established in the field at specific locations designated by an AVCON representative and were marked using a handheld, sub-meter accuracy, Trimble Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) unit. Although the SPT borings, pavement cores, and CBR locations were not surveyed in the field, the methods used to locate them are, in GEC’s opinion, sufficient to meet the intent of this study. Approximate boring, pavement core, and CBR sampling locations are presented on the Boring and Pavement Core Location Plan (Figure 2) in the Appendix.

3.1 SPT Borings

SPT borings were drilled in general accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1586. The boreholes were advanced by the rotary wash method with bentonite-based mud used as the circulating fluid to stabilize the boreholes. GEC’s field crew obtained SPT samples continuously in the borings to a depth of 10 feet. A GEC engineering technician monitored the drilling operation, and collected, examined and visually classified each sample. He then packaged representative portions of each sample for transport to our laboratory for further examination and laboratory testing.

3.2 CBR Sampling

Bulk soil samples for laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing were obtained at four locations adjacent to Runway 7-25. All bulk samples were obtained from depths ranging from about 0.5 to 2.5 feet below existing grade. Care was taken to obtain these samples from below the existing surficial root zone.

GEC Project No. 5678G 5 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

3.3 Pavement Cores

The existing pavements were cored through the asphalt to the bottom of the base material using a 6-inch diameter core barrel. A “Pavement Evaluation Coring and Condition” data form was prepared documenting the encountered pavement and base thicknesses, base type, crack classification, crack depth, and pavement condition classification at each core location. A manual auger boring was then performed at the bottom of the cored hole to collect a sample of the subgrade soil. Each boring was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D1452. The retrieved subgrade soils were examined by our technician prior to collection of representative samples.