Reams_Rd_Final_Geotechnical_Signals_Report.pdf

Prepared for:

DRMP, INC.

941 Lake Baldwin Lane

Orlando, FL 32814

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

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Design of Mast Arm Signal Structures

Final Design of Reams Road (From South of Summerlake Park Boulevard to

Taborfield Avenue) Orange County, Florida

Orange County Project No.: Y19-804-CH NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013

January 16, 2026

941 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, FL 32814

Attention: Ms. Colette Moss, P.E.

Vice President

RE: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report for Design of Mast Arm Signal Structures Final Design of Reams Road (From South of Summerlake Park Boulevard to Taborfield Avenue) Orange County, Florida Orange County Project No.: Y19-804-CH NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013

Dear Ms. Moss:

Nadic Engineering Services, Inc. (NADIC) is pleased to submit this Final Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above referenced proposed mast-arm signal installations along Reams Road in Orlando County, Florida. The purpose of this exploration was to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the location of the proposed mast arm signal structures in order to perform engineering evaluations and provide soil parameters for the signal designs. This investigation was conducted in accordance with the scope of services presented in the Subconsultant Agreement dated November 25, 2019.

This report contains the results of our soil explorations, an engineering interpretation with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and recommendations of subsurface soil’s parameters for foundation design and construction for the proposed signal structures.

NADIC appreciates the opportunity to work with you, DRMP and Orange County Public Works Department on this project and looks 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 N. Nnadi, Ph.D., P.E.

Engineer Intern Principal Engineer

FL Registration No. 50637 New Z Drive\...\PR.GEO- RD19013 -Reams Road\Structures\Signals Improvement\Project Working File\Report

Godwin Nnadi Dr. Nnadi Stamp

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page i of i (From South of Summerlake Park Boulevard to Taborfield Avenue) NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

NADIC

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE PUBLISHED DATA

3.1 USGS Topographic Map

3.2 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 Methods

5.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

5.1 General

5.2 SPT Boring Results

5.3 Groundwater Conditions

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

7.2 Groundwater Control

7.3 Shallow Spread Foundations

7.4 Drilled Shaft Foundations

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Figures 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map Figures 3A and 3B USDA/NRCS Soil Map

Figure 4 Potentiometric Surface Map Table 4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results Table 5 Soil Design Parameters

Appendix B

Sheets 1 through 9 Report of Signal Borings

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 1 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Orange County plans to reconstruct and widen the segment of Reams Road from South of Summerlake Park Boulevard to Taborfield Avenue. The project elements include the following:

Construction of four (4) lanes for Reams Road from South of Summerlake Park Boulevard to Taborfield Avenue, a 14-foot concrete multiuse trail on the left side, and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on the right side

Special treatment and/or additional lanes at major intersections, and widening of crossroads up to 600 feet in each direction

Box culvert expansion for stormwater and wildlife crossings Construction of six (6) new stormwater ponds Two (2) pavement coring within project limits Total of 19 traffic mast arms Approximately 2,500 linear feet of retaining walls

The Reams Road reconstruction and widening is generally located within Sections 34 and 35, Township 23 South and Range 27 East and within Sections 1 and 2, Township 24 South and Range 27 East in Windermere, Florida.

This report deals specifically with the proposed signal structures within the project limits. This report presents the findings of our subsurface exploration, an evaluation of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and provides geotechnical recommendations to guide design and construction of the proposed signal structures. The approximate locations of the proposed mast arm signal structures are summarized in Table 1 below and shown on the Aerial Map in Figure 1 in Appendix A.

Table 1:

Mast Arm Signal Structure Locations

Structure

ID

Northing

(feet) Easting (feet)

Station Offset (feet)

Baseline of Survey

Intersection

Pole 1 1493702.60 465681.98 381+63.84 60.74 LT

CL Const.

Reams Road

Oasis Cove Boulevard

/Torcello Isle Drive

Pole 2 1493639.47 465772.44 382+74.15 61.57 LT Pole 3 1493549.32 465719.21 382+82.88 42.76 RT Pole 4 1493608.71 465620.13 381+67.70 51.62 RT Pole 5 1490279.90 470113.25 437+69.25 66.27 LT

Floridian Way Pole 6 1490189.44 470200.59 438+93.98 67.35 LT Pole 7 1490091.44 470129.80 439+16.33 51.46 RT Pole 8 1490198.02 470003.84 437+52.32 69.46 RT Pole 9 1489562.18 470778.47 447+49.08 53.90 LT

Center Drive Pole 10 1489502.39 470859.39 448+55.92 61.61 LT Pole 11 1489384.19 470935.34 449+06.53 48.09 RT Pole 12 1489434.12 470741.40 448+07.49 65.82 RT

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 2 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

Table 1 Continued:

Mast Arm Signal Structure Locations

Structure

ID

Northing

(feet) Easting (feet)

Station Offset (feet)

Baseline of Survey

Intersection

Pole 13 1491110.03 476393.62 510+14.80 56.32 LT

CL Const.

Reams Road

Taborfield Avenue Pole 14 1491163.56 476451.62 510+97.27 56.29 LT

Pole 15 1491113.45 476543.28 511+26.50 44.04 RT Pole 16 1489263.48 472898.55 469+75.90 54.45 LT

Newmarket Drive Pole 17 1489265.42 473046.25 471+23.47 60.88 LT Pole 18 1489159.83 473026.56 471+07.00 45.26 RT Pole 19 1489159.83 472996.18 470+76.63 46.26 RT

The Signal Structures must meet all Florida Department of Transport (FDOT) design criteria.

The signal project sites are generally located within Section 34, Township 23 South and Range 27 East and within Sections 1 and 2, Township 24 South and Range 27 East in Windermere, Florida. The project aerial map presented as Figure 1 in Appendix A show the general project area.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions for the proposed signal structures along Reams Road in order to make engineering assessments and provide recommendations. This would serve as a guide for design and construction of the proposed signal structures.

Our services for this project are in general accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), “Soils and Foundation Manual.” The services include review of geologic and topographic information, field reconnaissance, groundwater table measurements, laboratory classification testing, engineering analyses, and evaluation and engineering design recommendations.

3.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE PUBLISHED DATA

3.1 USGS Topographic Map

The topographic survey maps published by United States Geological Survey (USGS) entitled "Windermere, Florida", dated 2018 was reviewed for ground surface features at the project vicinity.

Based on this review, the natural ground surface elevation appears to range from about +95 to +110 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD-88). A reproduction of the USGS map for the project area is presented on Figure 2 in Appendix A.

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 3 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

3.2 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 for general near-surface soil information within the general project vicinity. More specifically, the following Table 2 describes the primary mapping units within the vicinity of the signal structure locations.

A reproduction of the USDA/NRCS map for the project areas are presented on Figures 3A and 3B in Appendix A. The information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey is very general and may be outdated due to recent development in the site vicinity. These developments may have modified soil condition or surface/subsurface drainage.

Table 2:

USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Summary

*USCS: Unified Soils Classification System **SHGWT: Seasonal High Groundwater Table

3.3 Potentiometric Surface Map

Based on review of the map titled “Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridian Aquifer in the St.

Johns River Water Management District and Vicinity, Florida, May, 2009,” published by the USGS, the elevation of the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the project locations appears to range approximately from +75 to +90 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD-29). Portions of this Potentiometric Map are presented on Figure 4 in Appendix A.

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).

Soil Unit Depth (inches)

Soil Description

USCS*

Risk of Corrosion USDA

SHGWT

(ft.)* Uncoated

Steel Concrete

Smyrna- Smyrna

(44)

0-17 Fine Sand SP, SP-SM

High High 0-1 17-27 Sand, fine sand, loamy fine sand

SM, SP-SM

27-80 Sand, fine sand SP, SP-SM Urban land

(50)

Zolfo (54)

0-5 Fine Sand SP-SM Low Moderate

2-3.5 5-55 Fine Sand, Sand SP-SM, SM

55-80 Fine Sand, Sand SP-SM, SM

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 4 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

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 Floridian Aquifer.

The Eocene age Ocala and Avon Park limestone formations are contained in the Floridian Aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the world. The extremely high productivity of this aquifer is directly related to 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.

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM AND METHODS

4.1 Field Exploration Program

The subsurface exploration performed by NADIC consisted of 19 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. The SPT borings were drilled to depths ranging from 30 to 35 feet below existing grade.

The boring locations were determined from plan sheets provided by DRMP and established in the field by a representative of NADIC with the aid of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. Although the boring locations were therefore given only approximately, the methods used to locate the boring is, in NADIC’s opinion, sufficient to meet the intent of our study. Survey information provided for SPT boring locations in this report was provided by DRMP. The approximate SPT boring locations and soil profiles are presented on Sheets 1 through 9 in Appendix B.

4.2 Field Exploration Methods

SPT borings performed at the signal structure locations were conducted in general conformance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D-1586. Borings were advanced by the rotary wash method with bentonite-based mud as the circulating fluid to stabilize the borehole. The SPT boring was performed continuously from the ground surface to 10 feet and at 5-foot depth intervals thereafter. After seating the sampler six (6) 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 9 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. Most of the borings were performed using standard drop safety hammer (Rope-Cathead) type, except for borings MA-16 through MA-19 which were performed using automatic hammer, as noted on the SPT borings profile sheets. The “N” values for borings performed using the automatic hammer should be multiplied by a value of 1.24 to convert to equivalent safety hammer “N” values.

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 5 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

The recovered soil 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 level was measured at the SPT boreholes for the purpose of evaluating the depth to groundwater at the time of our field exploration. Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with natural soils.

5.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

5.1 General

The results of the SPT borings for Reams Road Signal structures are presented in the form of soil profiles on Sheets 1 through 9 in Appendix B. The profiles include observed soil strata, groundwater levels, laboratory test results and the SPT 'N'-values. The SPT borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operation for safety.

The soil classification and stratification shown on the report of SPT Borings are based on visual examination and interpretation of the boring profiles by a geotechnical engineer and the results of laboratory testing on selected soil samples. Stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual transition between soils may be gradual.

The boring profiles indicates subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations at the time of our field exploration. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater conditions may differ from the conditions we encountered at the boring locations at other locations within the project site. In addition, subsurface conditions at the boring locations can change over time.

The following generalized soil descriptions are intended to provide a brief summary of the observed subsoil conditions at the proposed signal structure locations. A specific description of the soil conditions and relative density is provided by the soil profiles.

5.2 SPT Boring Results

A total of 19 SPT borings were completed for the signal structures. The following table summarizes the subsurface profile encountered at the location of the proposed signal structures:

Stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual transition between soils may be gradual.

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 6 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

Table 3:

Generalized Subsurface Profiles

Location Boring ID

(Station & Offset)

Ground Surface

Elevation, ft Soil Description

Range of N-Values (blows/ft)

Reams Rd/ Oasis Cove

Blvd/Torcello Isle Dr

Intersection

MA-1

(381+64, 59’LT)

+104.4 – +98.4 Very loose brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) HA*

+98.4 – +81.9 Stiff to very stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) to gray sandy CLAY (CL)

10 - 24

+81.9 – +76.9 Loose light gray silty SAND (SM) 8 +76.9 – +74.4 Stiff light gray sandy CLAY (CL) 11

MA-2

(382+74, 61’LT)

+104.9 – +98.9 Very loose brown fine SAND with silt, trace roots (SP-

SM)

HA*

+98.9 – +82.4 Firm to very stiff brown clayey SAND (SC) to gray sandy CLAY (CL)

5- 26

+82.4 – +77.4 Loose light gray silty SAND (SM) 10 +77.4 – +74.9 Stiff light gray sandy CLAY (CL) 11

MA-3

(382+77, 30’RT)

+103.8 – +97.8 Very loose brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) HA*

+97.8 – +76.3 Stiff to very stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) and gray sandy CLAY (CL)

8 - 28

+76.9 – +73.8 Loose light gray silty SAND (SM) 8

MA-4

(381+68, 52’RT)

+103.2 – +95.2 Very loose to loose brown fine SAND with silt (SP-

SM)

HA* - 6

+95.2 – +80.7 Stiff to very stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) to gray sandy CLAY (CL)

13 - 23

+80.7 – +75.7 Loose light gray silty SAND (SM) 6 +75.7 – +73.2 Firm light gray sandy CLAY (CL) 7

Reams Road/ Floridian Way

Intersection

MA-5

(437+68, 66’LT)

+101.8 – +84.3 Very loose to medium dense brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) to silty SAND (SM)

HA* - 20

+84.3 – +71.8 Firm to very stiff gray sandy CLAY (CL) 5 - 20

MA-6

(438+94, 67’LT)

+101.7 – +84.2 Very loose to loose brown fine SAND with silt (SP- SM) to silty SAND (SM)

HA* - 5

+84.2 – +71.7 Firm to stiff light brown to gray sandy CLAY (CL) 7 - 14

MA-7

(439+16, 52’RT)

+99.1 – +91.1 Very loose to loose brown fine SAND with silt (SP-

SM)

HA* - 8

+91.1 – +69.1 Firm to very stiff brown clayey SAND (SC) and gray sandy CLAY (CL)

6 - 16

MA-8

(437+53, 70’RT)

+101.0 – +88.5 Very loose to medium dense brown fine SAND with silt, trace limerock fragments (SP-SM)

HA* - 16

+88.5 – +66.0 Soft to very stiff brown clayey SAND (SC) and light brown sandy CLAY (CL)

2 - 22

HA* = Hand Auger (assumed 3 Blows per foot)

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 7 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

Table 3 Continued:

Generalized Subsurface Profiles

Location Boring ID

(Station & Offset)

Ground Surface

Elevation, ft Soil Description

Range of N-Values (blows/ft)

Reams Road/Center

Drive Intersection

MA-9

(447+50, 53’LT)

+99.3 – +81.8 Very loose to medium dense gray to brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) to silty SAND (SM)

HA* - 28

+81.8 – +69.3 Firm to stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) 7 - 9

MA-10

(448+56, 60’LT)

+99.7 – +77.2 Very loose to medium dense brown to gray fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) to silty SAND (SM)

HA* - 22

+77.2 – +69.7 Stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) 11 - 14

MA-11

(449+19, 44’RT)

+99.9 - +69.9

Very loose to medium dense brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) to silty SAND (SM)

HA* - 21

MA-12

(448+07, 66’RT)

+95.0 - +77.5 Very loose to medium dense brown silty SAND (SM) HA* - 12 +77.5 - +72.5 Stiff brown clayey SAND (SC) 17

+72.5 - +65.0 Loose to medium dense light brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM)

7 - 16

Reams Road/ Taborfield

Avenue Intersection

MA-13

(510+15, 55’LT)

+103.9 - +73.9 Very loose to medium dense gray to brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM)

HA* - 25

MA-14

(510+96, 56’LT)

+104.6 - +74.6 Very loose to dense brown fine SAND with silt (SP-

SM)

HA* - 34

MA-15

(511+17, 45’RT)

+107.5 - +77.5 Very loose to medium dense brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM)

HA* - 18

Reams Road/ Newmarket

Drive Intersection

MA-16

(469+69, 49’ LT)

+99.9 - +69.9 Alternating layers of very loose to medium dense brown to gray fine SAND (SP) to fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) and silty SAND (SM)

HA* - 19

MA-17

(471+26, 61’ LT)

+100.4 - +77.9 Very loose to medium dense light brown fine SAND with limerock fragments (SP) (Fill) to light brown to dark brown silty SAND with organic (SM)

HA* - 10

+77.9 - +70.4 Stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) to loose light brown silty SAND (SM)

MA-18

(471+07, 45’ RT)

+99.0 - +66.5 Alternating layers of very loose to very dense brown to gray fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) and silty SAND

(SM)

1 - 36

+66.5 - +64.0 Very soft light gray clayey SAND (SC) WH**

MA-19

(470+81, 61’ LT)

+99.2 - +76.7 Very loose to dense brown fine SAND with silt (SP-SM) to silty SAND (SM)

2 - 25

+76.7 - +69.2 Very stiff light brown clayey SAND (SC) to very loose light gray silty SAND (SM)

2 - 12

HA* = Hand Auger (assumed 3 Blows per foot) WH** = Weight of hammer

Drilling fluid losses were not encountered in the borings.

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 8 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

5.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered at elevation between +102.5 feet and +91.5 feet NAVD-88 at the time of our field investigation (February and April 2022, and November 2023). The encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater elevation is presented on Sheets 1 through 9 (Report of Signal Borings) in Appendix B. Groundwater level 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 level.

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples collected from the borings were visually reviewed in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the field classifications and further laboratory testing. The samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488).

Index testing (i.e. -#200 sieve, moisture content and Atterberg limits) tests were performed where appropriate on representative soil samples.

The results of these tests are presented on Sheets 1 through 9 in Appendix B and in Table 4 in Appendix A.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

The following recommendations are based upon the review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, our experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If the proposed construction changes from those discussed previously or if subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ significantly from those conditions in the borings, NADIC requests the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes or findings.

Discussions of the analyses and recommendations for groundwater control and soil parameters necessary for drilled shaft designs are presented in the following.

7.2 Groundwater Control

The groundwater table fluctuates seasonally depending upon intensity and duration of rainfall, presence and the proximity of any artificial drainage facilities. Based on the latest FDOT Soils and Foundation Handbook (2022), the groundwater level should be assumed at the ground surface for design purposes.

It is anticipated that dewatering may be required to achieve the required compaction, if shallow spread foundation is to be utilized. If shallow foundation would be utilized, we recommend the groundwater table be maintained at least two (2) feet below all earthwork and bearing level during construction.

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 9 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026

Control of groundwater should be completed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Standard Specifications.

If groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during construction, we recommend the contract documents should require the contractor to be responsible for all dewatering, regardless of the groundwater level.

7.3 Shallow Spread Foundations

Shallow foundations are not considered as an alternative foundation for the signal structures. This conclusion is based on the following:

Space restriction – lack of adequate space for a large shallow foundation Utility Conflicts – buried utilities may need to be relocated

7.4 Drilled Shaft Foundations

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration at the proposed signal structure locations and our experience, the subsurface conditions encountered are suitable for construction of drilled shaft foundations for signal structures. Since no loading requirements and structure configurations were provided, we recommended soil design parameters for drilled shafts foundations design. The soil design parameters are presented in Table 5 in Appendix A.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations

Construction of drilled shafts should be done in accordance with the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 455. We recommend the drilled shafts should be constructed by the “wet method” due to shallow groundwater conditions.

Some of the soils encountered at the boring locations were very loose and may present complications during shaft installation. Temporary casing should be considered if natural slurry should not be adequate for maintaining hole stability and preventing soil collapse. If mineral slurry is used, adequate water tanks, slurry tanks and de-sanding equipment are required.

It is recommended that the following notes be added to the plans:

Layers of very hard materials such as cemented soils and hardpan were not encountered at the signal structure locations. However, such materials may be encountered during shaft excavations and/or temporary casing installation. The Contractor shall expect to encounter

Based on the … subsurface exploration at the proposed signal structure… …, the subsurface conditions … are suitable for … drilled shaft foundation …

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures Page 10 of 10

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 January 16, 2026 these types of materials at any shaft locations and shall use specialized equipment and/or procedures as necessary to facilitate shaft excavation and/or temporary casing installation.

When temporary casing is used; the casing tip shall be reinforced and casing thickness shall be adequate to prevent casing damage/deformation during installation through hard layers.

Drilled shaft bottoms shall be relatively clean of loose soil cuttings prior to concrete placement.

Natural Slurry shall not be relied upon to prevent caving of soils and maintaining an open hole.

If mineral slurry, Section 455-15-8, is used, desanding equipment is required.

Artesian conditions were not noted by the driller during drilling. However, based on review of the St. Johns River Water Management District potentiometric map of the upper Floridian Aquifer for the project area, the potential artesian head elevation is estimated to be at approximately +75 to +90 feet, NGVD-29.

The contractor shall be prepared to use temporary casing or other methods as necessary to control artesian water up to a head elevation of approximately +90 feet, NGVD-29.

Signal structure foundation that meets the above requirements and is constructed in accordance with the current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) specifications should perform satisfactorily.

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

The scope of the exploration was intended to evaluate soil conditions within the influence of shallow spread and drilled shaft foundations. It does not include any evaluations of deep potential soil problems such as sinkholes. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the location indicated and does not reflect any variations which may occur among these borings. If any variations become evident during the course of this project, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had the opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered. The applicability of the report should be reviewed in the event significant changes occur in the design, nature or location of the proposed structures.

The scope of services, included herein, did not include any environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, and groundwater, air on the site, below and around the site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items and conditions are strictly for the information of the client.

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map

Figures 3A and 3B USDA/NRCS Soil Maps

Figure 4 Potentiometric Surface Map

Table 4 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Table 5 Soil Design Parameters

Final Design of Reams Road – Mast Arm Signal Structures NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 November 15, 2023

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Boring No.

Approx.

Station & Offset

Sample Depth (feet)

Moisture Content

Organic Content

Percent Passing

#200

Atterberg Limits (%) Unified Soil Classification

(USCS)

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

MA-1 381+64 & 59’ LT 20 34 - 59 39 12 CL

MA-3 382+77 & 30’ RT 9 17 - 27 - - SC

MA-4 381+68 & 52’ RT 5 11 - 11 - - SP-SM

MA-5 437+68 & 66’ LT 9 18 - 31 20 3 SM

MA-7 439+16 & 52’ RT 15 22 - 30 - - SC

MA-8 437+53 & 70’ RT 7 19 - 6 - - SP-SM

MA-9 447+50 & 53’ LT

9 19 - 12 - - SM

25 25 - 20 25 8 SC

MA-10 448+56 & 60’ LT 15 19 - 21 - - SM

MA-12 448+07 & 66’ RT 25 24 - 6 - - SP-SM

MA-13 510+15 & 55’ LT 9 32 - 9 - - SP-SM

MA-15 511+17 & 45’ RT 20 22 - 5 - - SP-SM

MA-16 469+69 & 49’ LT 20 23 - 12 - - SM

MA-17 471+26 & 61’ LT 9 27 5 12 - - SM

MA-18 471+07 & 45’ RT 15 24 - 9 - - SP-SM

MA-19 470+81 & 46’ RT 25 26 - 19 31 15 SC

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 November 15, 2023

TABLE 5

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Boring

ID

Approximate Station and

Offset

Approximate Layer

Elevation (ft)

Unified Soil Classification

Average “N” Value

Effective Unit Weight

(pcf)

Weighted Average Unit Weight (pcf)

Angle of Internal Friction

(degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

At-Rest Pressure

Coefficient (Ko)

MA-1

381+64, 59’ LT

+104.4 - +98.4 SP-SM 3* 37.6

53.4

28 - 0.53

+98.4 - +86.9 SC 18 62.6 22 1800 -

+86.9 - +81.9 CL 10 57.6 - 1250 -

+81.9 - +76.9 SM 8 42.6 29 - 0.52

+76.9 - +74.4 CL 11 57.6 - 1375 -

MA-2

382+74, 61’ LT

+104.9 - +98.9 SP-SM 3* 37.6

51.1

28 - 0.53

+98.9 - +87.4 SC 14 57.6 21 1400 -

+87.4 - +82.4 CL 15 57.6 - 1875 -

+82.4 - +77.4 SM 10 42.6 29 - 0.52

+77.4 - +74.9 CL 11 57.6 - 1375 -

MA-3

382+77, 30’ RT

+103.8 - +97.8 SP-SM 3* 37.6

53.4

28 - 0.53

+97.8 - +86.3 SC 23 62.6 22 2300 -

+86.3 - +81.3 CL 12 57.6 - 1500 -

+81.3 - +76.3 SC 8 52.6 20 800 -

+76.3 - +73.8 SM 8 42.6 29 - 0.52

MA-4

381+68, 52’ RT

+103.2 - +95.2 SP-SM 4 37.6

50.9

28 - 0.53

+95.2 - +85.7 SC 21 62.6 22 2100 -

+85.7 - +80.7 CL 13 57.6 - 1625 -

+80.7 - +75.7 SM 6 42.6 29 - 0.52

+75.7 - +73.2 CL 7 52.6 - 875 -

MA-5

437+68, 66’ LT

+101.8 - +84.3 SP-SM, SM 7 42.6

48.9

29 - 0.52

+84.3 - +71.8 CL 11 57.6 - 1375 -

3* = “N” value for hand augered depth

In accordance with the FDOT Soils and Foundation Handbook (2022), the groundwater level was assumed at the ground surface for design purposes.

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 November 15, 2023

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS CONTINUED

Boring

ID

Approximate Station and

Offset

Approximate Layer

Elevation (ft)

Unified Soil Classification

Average “N” Value

Effective Unit Weight

(pcf)

Weighted Average Unit Weight (pcf)

Angle of Internal Friction

(degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

At-Rest Pressure

Coefficient (Ko)

MA-6

438+94, 67’ LT

+101.7 - +84.2 SP-SM, SM 4 37.6

45.9

28 - 0.53

+84.2 - +71.7 CL 11 57.6 - 1375 -

MA-7

439+16, 52’ RT

+99.1 - +91.1 SP-SM 4 37.6

52.3

28 - 0.53

+91.1 - +76.6 SC 9 57.6 20 900 -

+76.6 - +69.1 CL 11 57.6 - 1375 -

MA-8

437+53, 70’ RT

+101.0 - +88.5 SP-SM 7 42.6

51.2

29 - 0.52

+88.5 - +83.5 SC 22 62.6 22 2200 -

+83.5 - +68.5 CL 7 52.6 - 875 -

+68.5 - +66.0 SC 21 62.6 22 2100 -

MA-9

447+50, 53’ LT

+99.3 - +81.8 SP-SM, SM 11 47.6

49.7

30 - 0.50

+81.8 - +69.3 SC 8 52.6 20 800 -

MA-10

448+56, 60’ LT

+99.7 - +77.2 SP-SM, SM 11 47.6

50.1

30 - 0.50

+77.2 - +69.7 SC 13 57.6 21 1300 -

MA-11

449+19, 44’ RT

+99.9 - +69.9 SP-SM, SM 10 42.6 42.6 29 - 0.52

MA-12

448+07, 66’ RT

+95.0 - +77.5 SM 5 42.6

47.2

29 - 0.52

+77.5 - +72.5 SC 17 62.6 22 1700 -

+72.5 - +65.0 SP-SM 12 47.6 30 - 0.50

MA-13

510+15, 55’ LT

+103.9 - +73.9 SP-SM 11 47.6 47.6 30 - 0.50

MA-14

510+96, 56’ LT

+104.6 - +74.6 SP-SM 11 47.6 47.6 30 - 0.50

MA-15

511+17, 45’ RT

+107.5 - +77.5 SP-SM 9 42.6 42.6 29 - 0.52

In accordance with the FDOT Soils and Foundation Handbook (2022), the groundwater level was assumed at the ground surface for design

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD19013 November 15, 2023

SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS CONTINUED

Boring

ID

Approximate Station and

Offset

Approximate Layer

Elevation (ft)

Unified Soil Classification

Average “N60” Value

Effective Unit Weight

(pcf)

Weighted Average Unit Weight (pcf)

Angle of Internal Friction

(degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

At-Rest Pressure

Coefficient (Ko)

MA-16

469+69, 49’ LT

+99.9 – +69.9 SP, SM, SP-SM 7 42.6 42.6 29 - 0.52

MA-17

471+26, 61’ LT

+100.4 – +77.9 SP (FILL), SP, SM 5 42.6

45.1

29 - 0.52

+77.9 – +72.9 SC 9 57.6 20 900 -

+72.9 – +70.4 SM 9 42.6 29 - 0.52

MA-18

471+07, 45’ RT

+99.0 – +66.5 SP-SM, SM 10 42.6

42.6

29 - 0.52

+66.5 – +64.0 SC WH 42.6 20 100 -

MA-19

470+81, 61’ LT

+99.2 – +76.7 SP-SM, SM 10 42.6

44.6

29 - 0.52

+76.6 – +71.7 SC 15 57.6 21 1500 -

+71.7 – +69.2 SM 2 37.6 26 - 0.56

WH = Weight of hammer

In accordance with the FDOT Soils and Foundation Handbook (2022), the groundwater level was assumed at the ground surface for design

APPENDIX B

Sheets 1 through 9 Report of Signal Borings