SA-05 - CFTOD_TWO01_S S GEOTECH REPORT_ECD OH TRUSS_2026-03-18.pdf

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION

EPCOT CENTER DRIVE OVERHEAD TRUSS DESIGN - ED-W-2 AND ED-E-1

Orange County, Florida Contract No. C006819

TLP Project No. T202502.01 GEC Project No. 5913G

Prepared for:

TLP Engineering Consultants, Inc.

450 South Orange Avenue, Suite 450 Orlando, Florida 32801

Prepared by:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc.

919 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, Florida 32814

March 18, 2026

March 18, 2026

TLP Engineering Consultants, Inc.

450 South Orange Avenue, Suite 450 Orlando, Florida 32801

Attention: Mr. Mike Waddell, P.E.

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

EPCOT CENTER DRIVE OVERHEAD TRUSS DESIGN - ED-W-2 AND ED-E-1

Contract No. C006819 TLP Project No. T202502.01 Orange County, Florida GEC Project No. 5913G

Dear Mr. Waddell:

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC) is pleased to present this Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this study was to explore the soil and groundwater conditions at the overhead truss sign locations ED-W-2 and ED-E-1 and use the information obtained to develop geotechnical recommendations to support the design of the replacement foundations. This report describes our methodology, documents our field and laboratory test results and presents our recommendations regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project.

GEC appreciates the opportunity to be of service to TLP Engineering Consultants, Inc. on this project. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely, GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Alexis E. Baugh, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Craig G. Ballock, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida License No. 71571

This Report has been digitally signed and sealed by Craig G. Ballock, P.E. on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

GEC Project No. 5913G ii Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss Design

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 NRCS SOIL SURVEY

3.0 FDEP POTENTIOMETRIC MAP DATA

4.0 CENTRAL FLORIDA GEOLOGY

5.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

5.1 Truss Sign Subsurface Investigation

5.2 Soil Boring Locations

5.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings

5.4 Corrosion Sampling

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7.1 Soil Boring Results

7.2 Groundwater Levels

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations for Truss Sign Structures

9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Orange County NRCS Soil Survey Units Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Testing Program

APPENDIX

FIGURES

Figure 1: USGS Quadrangle and NRCS Soil Survey Maps Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Figures 3A and 3B: Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Boring Results for Signs

TABLES

Table 3: Corrosion Series Test Results Table 4: Recommended Soil Parameters for Drilled Shaft Design: Signs

GEC Project No. 5913G 1 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located along eastbound and westbound Epcot Center Drive near the intersection of World Drive within the Central Florida Tourism Oversite District (CFTOD) in Orange County, Florida. More specifically, the project site is the two existing truss signs ED-W-2 and WD-E- 1 as shown on Figure 1.

We understand that project plans for this site include the replacement of the two existing truss signs utilizing drilled shaft foundations. If any of the above project information is incorrect, please notify us so that we can evaluate whether the changes in design affect our recommendations.

2.0 NRCS SOIL SURVEY

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida was reviewed for near-surface soil and groundwater information. The NRCS Soil Survey map is shown on Figure 1. The soils near the project site are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Orange County NRCS Soil Survey Units

Soil Unit No. Soil Name

Depth (inches) Soil Description

Unified Classification

Symbol

Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater

(feet) Hydrologic

Group

Smyrna-Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Non-hydric

0 – 4 4 – 17

17 – 27 27 – 80

Fine sand Fine sand

Loamy fine sand, fine sand Fine sand

SP-SM, SM, SP

SP-SM, SP

SP-SM, SM

SP-SM, SP

0.5 – 3.5

A/D

Hydric

0 – 4 4 – 17

17 – 27 27 – 80

Fine sand Fine sand

Fine sand, loamy fine sand Fine sand

SP-SM, SM, SP

SP-SM, SP

SP-SM, SM

SP-SM, SP

0.0 – 0.5

The NRCS soil survey depicts Smyrna-Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes at the site.

These soils are generally classified as poorly drained fine sand with silt to silty fine sand. The NRCS predicts seasonal high groundwater levels for these soil types to generally range from 0.0 to 3.5 feet below the natural ground surface.

Information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey is very general and may be outdated. Therefore, it may not 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.

GEC Project No. 5913G 2 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

3.0 FDEP POTENTIOMETRIC MAP DATA

Artesian groundwater conditions can be predicted based on comparison of the Floridan aquifer potentiometric surface and ground surface elevations. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) web map entitled Upper Floridan Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Contours, September 2021 (the most recent map available) indicates the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer at the site is approximately +88 feet NGVD (+87 feet NAVD88). The existing ground surface at the project site ranges from approximately +97 to +105 feet NGVD (+98 to +106 feet NAVD88). Therefore, any excavations that penetrate the confining layer may experience artesian conditions. GEC's borings did not encounter artesian conditions; however, we used a bentonite slurry in the boreholes that may have obscured artesian conditions. The contractor should be prepared to handle artesian conditions up to an elevation of +88 feet NGVD (+87 feet NAVD88).

4.0 CENTRAL FLORIDA GEOLOGY

Based on a review of the Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 59, Florida Geomorphology Atlas, 2022, the project is located within the Florida Geomorphology Osceola Plain Province located within the Barrier Island Sequence District. The oldest units comprising the land surface in the Osceola Plain Province are the Quaternary undifferentiated sediments and Quaternary beach ridge and dune sediments. Dissolution in the Eocene Avon Park Formation and the Eocene Ocala limestone is responsible for the larger karst features. Dissolution of the shell in the Tertiary-Quaternary shelly sediments form shallow, cover-subsidence sinkholes. Large karst landforms are not common in this province.

Central Florida geology is classified as “karst” or sinkhole prone. Where the Hawthorn is absent, water and sand can flow downward to cavities within the Floridan aquifer, like sand through an hourglass, recharging the Floridan aquifer, and sometimes causing the formation of surface depressions, or sinkholes. This process of subsurface erosion caused by recharge is known as raveling. Thus, areas of groundwater recharge to the Floridan aquifer are more likely to experience sinkhole activity.

No method of geological, geotechnical, or geophysical exploration is known that can accurately predict the occurrence of sinkholes. It is common geotechnical practice in Central Florida to make a qualitative prediction of sinkhole risk based on local geological conditions in the vicinity of a particular site. Based on our review of the U.S. Geological Survey Map entitled Recharge and Discharge Areas of the Floridan Aquifer in the St. Johns River Water Management District and Vicinity, Florida, 1984, the project alignment is in a known low to moderate recharge area and, GEC Project No. 5913G 3 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1 therefore, we can conclude based solely on this data that it also is in an area where the relative risk of sinkhole formation is moderate compared to the overall risk across Central Florida.

5.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

In addition to consulting the sources of information previously discussed for regional and site-specific soils data, a limited subsurface exploration was conducted to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions at each replacement sign location. The subsurface exploration is detailed in the following report sections.

5.1 Truss Sign Subsurface Investigation

GEC explored subsurface conditions at each truss sign by performing Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings at each pole location to depths ranging from 50 to 60 feet.

5.2 Soil Boring Locations

Boring locations were surveyed in the field for vertical and horizontal control by DRMP, Inc.

The boring locations are referenced from the EPCOT Centerline of Construction. Ground surface elevations reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The boring locations from this study are presented on Figure 2 in the Appendix.

5.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Borings

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were drilled in general accordance with ASTM Standard D1586. The boreholes were advanced by the rotary wash method with bentonite-based mud used as the circulating fluid to help remove cuttings and stabilize the borehole. GEC’s field crew obtained SPT samples continuously in the borings to a depth of 10 feet and at 5-foot depth intervals thereafter. A GEC engineering technician supervised the drilling operation, and collected, examined and visually classified each sample. Representative samples were collected for further visual examination and classification in the GEC laboratory. The SPT borings were grout-sealed upon completion.

5.4 Corrosion Sampling

Soil samples were obtained for corrosion testing. The samples were immediately placed in glass jars and returned to the GEC laboratory for chemical testing.

GEC Project No. 5913G 4 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Select soil samples retrieved from the borings were tested in accordance with Florida Standard Testing Methods (FM) and American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) testing methods. Our laboratory testing program is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Testing Program

Test Test No.

Percent Fines AASHTO T88

Organic Content FM 1 - T267 Atterberg Limits AASHTO T89/90

Natural Moisture Content AASHTO T265 Corrosion Series (pH, sulfates, chlorides, and resistivity) FM 5-550/551/552/553

The results of our laboratory tests are shown adjacent to the soil boring profiles presented on the SPT Boring Results for Signs sheets (Figures 3A to 3B) in the Appendix. The Corrosion Series Test Results are reported in Table 3 in the Appendix.

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of our borings are presented on the SPT Boring Results for Signs sheets (Figures 3A to 3B) in the Appendix. The soils encountered in our SPT borings were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (SP, SP-SM, etc.). Soils were described using the ASTM soil descriptions (e.g., sand with silt). We based our classifications on visual examination and the limited laboratory testing performed.

The boring logs indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations at the time of our field exploration. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels, at other locations of the project site may differ from conditions we encountered at the boring locations. Moreover, conditions at the boring locations can change over time. Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, and soil conditions can be altered by earthmoving operations.

The depths and thicknesses of the subsurface strata indicated on the boring logs were interpolated between samples obtained at different depths in the borings. The actual transition between soil layers may be different than indicated. These stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes and actual earthwork quantities measured during construction should be expected to vary from quantities calculated based on the information in this report.

GEC Project No. 5913G 5 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

7.1 Soil Boring Results

In general, the borings performed for truss signs ED-W-2 and ED-E-1 encountered loose to medium dense fine sand with variable silt content (SP, SP-SM, SM) to depths of 25 to 35 feet, underlain by loose silty fine sand (SM) to clayey fine sand (SC) to the boring termination depths of 50 to 60 feet.

The following notable exceptions were encountered:

• Borings B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 encountered very loose silty fine sand (SM) to clayey fine sand (SC) at variable depths ranging from 28.5 to 48.5 feet.

• Borings B-2 and B-3 encountered very dense fine sand with silt (SP-SM) at depths ranging from 8 to 13.5 feet and 23.5 to 28.5 feet, respectively.

• Borings B-2, B-3 and B-4 encountered very soft to soft sandy fat clay (CH) to sandy lean clay (CL) at variable depths ranging from 33.5 to 48.5 feet.

For specific subsurface profiles at our boring locations please refer to the SPT Boring Results for Signs sheets (Figures 3A to 3B) in the Appendix.

7.2 Groundwater Levels

In general, groundwater was not encountered at a majority of our boring locations (B-1, B-2, B-3) to depths of 8 to 12 feet, indicated by “GNE”. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 6.8 feet in boring B-4.

Groundwater levels can vary seasonally and with changes in subsurface conditions between boring locations. Alterations in surface and/or subsurface drainage brought about by site development can also affect groundwater levels. Therefore, groundwater depths measured at different times or at different locations along the project alignment can be expected to vary from those measured during this investigation.

For the purposes of this report, estimated seasonal high groundwater levels are defined as groundwater levels that are anticipated at the end of the wet season of a “normal rainfall” year under current site conditions. A “normal rainfall” year is defined as a year in which rainfall quantity and distribution were at or near historical rainfall averages.

Seasonal high groundwater levels were estimated to range from 4 to 8 feet (+93.3 to +97.7 feet NAVD88) at the boring locations.

GEC Project No. 5913G 6 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

The encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations are presented on Figures 3A to 3B in the Appendix.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based in part on the data obtained from a limited number of soil samples and groundwater and surface water measurements obtained from widely spaced borings. The exploration methods used indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations, only at the time they were performed, and 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 subsurface conditions described in this report do become evident during construction or if the project characteristics described in this report change, GEC should be retained to reevaluate this report’s conclusions and recommendations in light of such changes. We also recommend that GEC be allowed to review the construction plans prior to bidding so that we can verify that our recommendations were properly interpreted.

8.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations for Truss Sign Structures

Based on the results of the soil borings performed for the sign foundations, the soils appear suitable for support of the drilled shaft foundations. The sign foundations should be designed using the subsurface data and soil strength parameters provided in this report and in accordance with FDOT Standard Plans, Index 700-041 (span). Soil parameters recommended for use in design of the sign drilled shaft foundations are presented in Table 4 in the Appendix.

The drilled shaft foundations must be installed such that the soils on the sides and bottom of the shaft are relatively undisturbed. Intimate contact must be made between the concrete and surrounding soils. The use of surface casing and/or slurry may be required to facilitate installation and prevent collapses within the hole, especially below the groundwater level. Natural slurry is not allowed by the FDOT specifications and should not be relied upon to prevent caving of soils and maintaining an open hole.

Drilled shaft foundations located adjacent to slopes steeper than 4:1 may need to be lengthened to account for reduced soil capacity. Where the proposed foundations are to be located on or adjacent to a slope steeper than 4H:1V, the soil resistance contributions should be neglected above the elevation where the slope face is within a horizontal distance of three shaft diameters (3B) from the mid-point of the shafts. The distance from the ground line to this elevation should then be added back to the calculated shaft embedment length. Shafts located in areas where fill is

GEC Project No. 5913G 7 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1 required to raise grades should be constructed after placement of fill soils to avoid settlement of the shaft, which may occur during fill placement.

Drilled shaft foundations should not be tipped within one shaft diameter above very loose/soft soils with N-values less than 2 blows per foot, which may result in excessive shaft settlement or instability of the shaft bottom during construction. Shaft tip elevations within one shaft diameter above very loose/soft soils (N-value < 2 bpf), as determined by design calculations, should be extended below the very loose/soft soils. We recommend that GEC be provided the design shaft tip elevations for review prior to final plans submittal. Additionally, we recommend that GEC be notified if any drilled shafts are designed to tip in any clay layers (CL, CH) encountered in the boring profiles.

Based on the encountered subsurface conditions, GEC recommends the following note(s) be added to the project plans:

1) Layers of dense to very dense sand material were encountered at this site. Such materials can cause difficult shaft excavations, dewatering and/or temporary casing installation. Expect to encounter this type of material at all shaft locations. Specialized equipment and/or procedures may be necessary to facilitate shaft excavation, dewatering and/or temporary casing installation. When temporary casing is used, reinforce the casing tip, and increase casing thickness to prevent casing damage/deformation during installation through dense layers.

2) According to the FDEP 2021 Upper Floridan Aquifer Potentiometric Surface Map, the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer in the project vicinity is approximately +88 feet NGVD (+87 feet NAVD88). Artesian conditions may be encountered at all shaft locations and specialized equipment and/or procedures must be used as necessary to control artesian head levels up to +88 feet NGVD (+87 feet NAVD88) to facilitate shaft construction.

9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT

GEC has prepared this report for the exclusive use of our client, TLP Engineering Consultants, Inc., for specific application to this project. GEC is not responsible for any third party’s interpretation or use of this report’s subsurface data, engineering analysis or recommendations without our written authorization.

GEC Project No. 5913G 8 Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

- ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

The sole purpose of the borings performed by GEC at this site was to obtain indications of subsurface conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. GEC has not evaluated the site for the potential presence of contaminated soil or groundwater, nor have we subjected any soil samples to analysis for contaminants.

GEC has performed the services described in this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing in Central Florida. No other representation is made or implied in this document.

APPENDIX

FIGURES

3 37

T:\J5913G EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss_TLP\7 CADD Files\ArcGIS\Standard QUAD.mxd 3/17/2026

U

USGS Windermere, FL Quadrangle Map Dated: 1980

NRCS Soil Survey of Orange County, FL Orange County Map Unit Legend 44 - Smyrna-Smyrna, wet, fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Approximate Project Site

USGS QUADRANGLE AND

NRCS SOIL SURVEY

MAPS

FIGURE

NO.EPCOT CENTER DRIVE

TRUSS REPLACEMENT 1

0 2,0001,000

Feet

0 1,000500

Feet

919 LAKE BALDWIN LANE

ORLANDO, FL. 32814

CRAIG G. BALLOCK, P.E.

P.E. LICENSE NUMBER 71571

Approximate Project Site

B-4

B-3

B-2

B-1

T:\J5913G EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss_TLP\7 CADD Files\ArcGIS\5913G PLAN.mxd 3/17/2026

FIGURE

NO.

U 0 10050

Feet

SPT BORING LOCATION EPCOT CENTER DRIVE

TRUSS REPLACEMENT BORING LOCATION PLAN 2

919 LAKE BALDWIN LANE

ORLANDO, FL. 32814

CRAIG G. BALLOCK, P.E.

P.E. LICENSE NUMBER 71571

NOTE: BORING LOCATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY DRMP

FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL.

OT-1

RT

B-2

OT-1

LT

EPCOT C

ENTER D

R

" C

MP

FULL

SPAN S

IGN S

TURCTURE

(EASTBOUND)

202020

.7

P I

S

T A

B-1

ELEC

ELEC

ELEC

INV.

ELEV.

.30

PIP

E C

ULVERT

INV.

ELEV.

.50

PIP

E C

ULVERT

R E

V

IS

IO

N

S

N O

B

Y D

A T

E R

E A

S O

N

3/18/2026mmiller T:\J5913G EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss_TLP\7 CADD Files\5913G\geotechnical\SPTBSP01.dgn11:25:07 AM

SHEET

P R

O J E

C T

D R

A W

N

A E

B

A P

P R

O V

E D

C

G B

D A

T E

T W

O N

O

E C

D T

R U

S S

R E

P L

A C

E M

E N

T

O R

L A

N D

O F

L

L

A K

E B

A L

D W

IN

L

A N

E

C O

N S

U L

T A

N T

S

IN

C

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L A

N D

E N

V

IR

O N

M E

N T

A L

SPT BORING RESULTS FOR SIGNS

T H

E O

F F

I C

I A

L R

E C

O R

D O

F T

H I S

S H

E E

T I

S T

H E

E L

E C

T R

O N

I C

F I L

E D

I G

I T

A L

L Y

S I G

N E

D A

N D

S E

A L

E D

U N

D E

R R

U L

E

G

.0

F

.A .C

S-9

License No. 71571

Professional Engineer

State of Florida

Craig G. Ballock

S

P T

B

O R

I N

G R

E S

U L

T S

F O

R S

I G

N S

S T

A N

D A

R D

P E

N E

T R

A T

I O

N T

E S

W/H/18" WEIGHT OF HAMMER FOR 18 INCHES OF PENETRATION

HA HAND AUGERED FOR UTILITY CLEARANCE

GENERAL NOTES

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER:

INSIDE DIAMETER: 1.375 IN.

OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 2.0 IN.

AVERAGE HAMMER DROP: 30 IN.

HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 LBS.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION:

SUBSTRUCTURE:

SUPERSTRUCTURE: SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

TOWNSHIP: 24 SOUTH

RANGE: 27 EAST

LEGEND

BT BORING TERMINATED AT DEPTH INDICATED

N STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER FOOT

-200=

MC=

LL=

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE

PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

LIQUID LIMIT

SAND

SAND AND SILT

SAND AND CLAY

PI= PLASTICITY INDEX

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (FT. NAVD88)GSE

ELEVATION (FT. NAVD88)

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER

+97.3

SECTION: 24

STEEL: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE (pH=6.2)

CONCRETE: SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE (pH=6.2)

OVER 40

24-40

8-24

3-8

0-3

GRANULAR SOILS: SANDS

VERY DENSE

DENSE

MEDIUM DENSE

LOOSE

VERY LOOSE

HARD

VERY STIFF

STIFF

FIRM

SOFT

VERY SOFT

DENSITY

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

OVER 24

12-24

6-12

3-6

1-3

0-1

(BLOWS/FT)

N VALUE

(BLOWS/FT)

N VALUE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

SILTS, CLAYS, MUCK

NON-GRANULAR SOILS:

BE PREPARED TO HANDLE ARTESIAN HEAD LEVELS UP TO +88 FEET NAVD88.

SURFACE OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER IN THE PROJECT VICINITY IS APPROXIMATELY +88 FEET NAVD88.

ACCORDING TO THE FDEP SEPTEMBER 2021 POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOURS MAP, THE POTENTIOMETRIC

DENSE LAYERS.

THICKNESS ADEQUATELY TO PREVENT CASING DAMAGE/DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION THROUGH

INSTALLATION. WHEN TEMPORARY CASING IS USED, REINFORCE THE CASING TIP SHALL AND THE CASING

AND/OR PROCEDURES AS NECESSARY TO FACILTATE SHAFT EXCAVATION AND/OR TEMPORARY CASING

ENCOUNTER THIS TYPE OF MATERIAL AT ALL SHAFT LOCATIONS AND SHALL USE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT

MAY MAKE SHAFT EXCAVATION AND/OR TEMPORARY CASING INSTALLATION DIFFICULT. EXPECT TO

LAYERS OF DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND MAY BE ENCOUNTERED AT THIS SITE. SUCH MATERIALS

CONTROL. THE BORING LOCATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY DRMP FOR VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

PENETRATION RESISTANCES ARE SHOWN ON THE BORINGS AT THE TEST DEPTHS IN BLOWS PER FOOT

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS WERE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. STANDARD

TESTING SHOWN.

SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THE BORINGS ARE BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION AND THE LABORATORY

BORING LOCATIONS. ACTUAL CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN. UNIFIED

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE BORINGS REPRESENT THE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED AT THE

N

+50

+55

+60

+65

+70

+75

+80

+85

+90

+95

+100

+105

+110

N

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

F

T

N A

V D

HA

HA

HA

W/H/18"

GROUTED

BT AT 55'

+97.3

DATE DRILLED: 3-6-26

DRILLER: L. LEGG

RIG TYPE: TRACK BR 2500

HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC

GSE: +105.3

LONG: W81.56406°

LAT: N28.37860°

STA. 19+01, 13' RIGHT

B-1

-200=11

PI=10

LL=32

MC=42

-200=22

OC=3.8

MC=28

-200=17

GNE @ 11.2'

OC= PERCENT ORGANIC CONTENT

N

HA

HA

HA

W/H/18"

GROUTED

BT AT 50'

+97.1

DATE DRILLED: 3-6-26

DRILLER: L. LEGG

RIG TYPE: TRACK BR 2500

HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC

GSE: +105.1

LONG: W81.56399°

LAT: N28.37845°

STA. 19+04, 72' RIGHT

B-2

+50

+55

+60

+65

+70

+75

+80

+85

+90

+95

+100

+105

+110

E L

E V

A T

IO

N (F

T . N

A V

D

-200=6

GNE @ 12.4'

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

TRACE ORGANIC MATERIAL

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTEREDGNE

-200=11

-200=9

-200=20

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

GRAY SANDY FAT CLAY (CH)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

Feet

0 10

B-1

B-2

ACarrigan Typewritten Text

FIGURE 3A

OT-2

RT

OT-2

LT

INV.

ELEV.

95.

73'

U-T

YPE

ENDWALL

FLOW

ELEV.

.75

SE I

NV.

ELEV.

94.

58'

NW

INV.

ELEV.

97.

30'

GRATE

ELEV.

.14

GUTTE

R I

NLET

C

M P

R

C P

FL

OW

ELE

V.

2.7 7'

SE

INV.

ELE

V.

.23

NW

INV.

ELE

V.

.16

GRATE

E

LE

V.

2.9 4'

INLE

T

GUTT

ER

INLE

T

R

C P

EP

COT

CENTE

R

DR

INV.

ELE

V.

.61

GUTT

ER

INLE

T

FULL

S

PAN

SIG

N

STRUCTURE

(W

ES

TBOUND)

B-4

B-3

R E

V

IS

IO

N

S

N O

B

Y D

A T

E R

E A

S O

N

3/18/2026mmiller T:\J5913G EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss_TLP\7 CADD Files\5913G\geotechnical\SPTBSP01.dgn11:25:08 AM

SHEET

P R

O J E

C T

D R

A W

N

A E

B

A P

P R

O V

E D

C

G B

D A

T E

T W

O N

O

E C

D T

R U

S S

R E

P L

A C

E M

E N

T

O R

L A

N D

O F

L

L

A K

E B

A L

D W

IN

L

A N

E

C O

N S

U L

T A

N T

S

IN

C

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L A

N D

E N

V

IR

O N

M E

N T

A L

SPT BORING RESULTS FOR SIGNS - 2

H

E O

F F

I C

I A

L R

E C

O R

D O

F T

H I S

S H

E E

T I

S T

H E

E L

E C

T R

O N

I C

F I L

E D

I G

I T

A L

L Y

S I G

N E

D A

N D

S E

A L

E D

U N

D E

R R

U L

E

G

.0

F

.A .C

S-10

License No. 71571

Professional Engineer

State of Florida

Craig G. Ballock

S

P T

B

O R

I N

G R

E S

U L

T S

F O

R S

I G

N S

S T

A N

D A

R D

P E

N E

T R

A T

I O

N T

E S

W/H/18" WEIGHT OF HAMMER FOR 18 INCHES OF PENETRATION

HA HAND AUGERED FOR UTILITY CLEARANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL CLASSIFICATION:

SUBSTRUCTURE:

SUPERSTRUCTURE: SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

LEGEND

BT BORING TERMINATED AT DEPTH INDICATED

N STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER FOOT

-200=

MC=

LL=

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE

PERCENT NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

LIQUID LIMIT

SAND

SAND AND SILT

SAND AND CLAY

PI= PLASTICITY INDEX

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (FT. NAVD88)GSE

ELEVATION (FT. NAVD88)

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER

+93.3

STEEL: SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

CONCRETE: SLIGHTLY AGGRESSIVE

N

OC= PERCENT ORGANIC CONTENT

+35

+40

+45

+50

+55

+60

+65

+70

+75

+80

+85

+90

+95

+100

+105

N

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

F

T

N A

V D

HA

HA

HA

W/H/18"

GROUTED

BT AT 60'

+93.3

DATE DRILLED: 3-5-26

DRILLER: L. LEGG

RIG TYPE: TRACK BR 2500

HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC

GSE: +97.3

LONG: W81.56211°

LAT: N28.37933°

STA. 25+83, 3' LEFT

B-3

-200=4

PI=32

LL=45

MC=37

-200=56

N

HA

HA

HA

W/H/18"

W/H/18"

+97.7

DATE DRILLED: 3-5-26

DRILLER: L. LEGG

RIG TYPE: TRACK BR 2500

HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC

GSE: +102.7

LONG: W81.56219°

LAT: N28.37956°

STA. 25+95, 93' LEFT

B-4

+95.9

+35

+40

+45

+50

+55

+60

+65

+70

+75

+80

+85

+90

+95

+100

+105

E L

E V

A T

IO

N (F

T . N

A V

D

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTEREDGNE

GROUTED

BT AT 55'

GNE @ 8'

-200=5

-200=21

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN

GRAY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

GRAY SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (SP)

BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)

LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

BROWN SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (SM)

BROWN TO GRAY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC)

-200=3

-200=8

PI=28

LL=39

MC=36

-200=62

PI=20

LL=37

MC=47

-200=45

GENERAL NOTES

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER:

INSIDE DIAMETER: 1.375 IN.

OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 2.0 IN.

AVERAGE HAMMER DROP: 30 IN.

HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 LBS.

TOWNSHIP: 24 SOUTH

RANGE: 27 EAST

SECTION: 24

OVER 40

24-40

8-24

3-8

0-3

GRANULAR SOILS: SANDS

VERY DENSE

DENSE

MEDIUM DENSE

LOOSE

VERY LOOSE

HARD

VERY STIFF

STIFF

FIRM

SOFT

VERY SOFT

DENSITY

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

OVER 24

12-24

6-12

3-6

1-3

0-1

(BLOWS/FT)

N VALUE

(BLOWS/FT)

N VALUE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

SILTS, CLAYS, MUCK

NON-GRANULAR SOILS:

BE PREPARED TO HANDLE ARTESIAN HEAD LEVELS UP TO +88 FEET NAVD88.

SURFACE OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER IN THE PROJECT VICINITY IS APPROXIMATELY +88 FEET NAVD88.

ACCORDING TO THE FDEP SEPTEMBER 2021 POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOURS MAP, THE POTENTIOMETRIC

DENSE LAYERS.

THICKNESS ADEQUATELY TO PREVENT CASING DAMAGE/DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION THROUGH

INSTALLATION. WHEN TEMPORARY CASING IS USED, REINFORCE THE CASING TIP SHALL AND THE CASING

AND/OR PROCEDURES AS NECESSARY TO FACILTATE SHAFT EXCAVATION AND/OR TEMPORARY CASING

ENCOUNTER THIS TYPE OF MATERIAL AT ALL SHAFT LOCATIONS AND SHALL USE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT

MAY MAKE SHAFT EXCAVATION AND/OR TEMPORARY CASING INSTALLATION DIFFICULT. EXPECT TO

LAYERS OF DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND MAY BE ENCOUNTERED AT THIS SITE. SUCH MATERIALS

CONTROL. THE BORING LOCATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY DRMP FOR VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

PENETRATION RESISTANCES ARE SHOWN ON THE BORINGS AT THE TEST DEPTHS IN BLOWS PER FOOT

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS WERE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-1586. STANDARD

TESTING SHOWN.

SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THE BORINGS ARE BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION AND THE LABORATORY

BORING LOCATIONS. ACTUAL CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE BORINGS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN. UNIFIED

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE BORINGS REPRESENT THE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED AT THE

Feet

0 10

B-4

B-3

ACarrigan Typewritten Text

FIGURE 3B

TABLES

Table 3 Corrosion Series Test Results

EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss Design - ED-W-2 and ED-E-1 GEC Project No. 5913G

Concrete Steel 19+01 13 RT B-1 SP-SM 2 - 4 6.2 39,000 < 15 < 6 Slightly Aggressive Moderately Aggressive 25+95 93 LT B-4 SP 4.5 - 5.5 8.7 20,000 9 < 6 Slightly Aggressive Slightly Aggressive

*Environmental classification for concrete and steel in accordance with FDOT Structures Design Guidelines Table 1.3.2-1.

*Substructural Environmental ClassificationSample Depth

(ft) pH

Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Chlorides (ppm)

Sulfates (ppm)Sta. Offset

Boring No.

Unified Class.

Table 4 Recommended Soil Parameters for Drilled Shaft Design: Signs EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss Design - ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

GEC Project No. 5913G

ID Station Offset (feet)

0.0 - 10.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

10.1 - 12.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

12.1 - 14.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

14.1 - 16.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

16.1 - 18.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

18.1 - 20.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

20.1 - 22.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

22.1 - 24.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

24.1 - 26.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

26.1 - 28.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

28.1 - 30.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

30.1 - 32.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

32.1 - 34.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

34.1 - 36.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

36.1 - 38.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

38.1 - 40.0 12 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

40.1 - 42.0 12 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

42.1 - 44.0 11 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

44.1 - 46.0 11 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

46.1 - 48.0 11 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

48.1 - 50.0 10 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

50.1 - 52.0 10 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

52.1 - 54.0 10 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

54.1 - 55.0 10 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

NOTES

1) The soil parameters for each of the listed drilled shaft length ranges are average parameters for entire drilled shaft length. Only utilize the single set of parameters provided for the associated planned drilled shaft length during shaft design.

2) N-values include an equivalent safety hammer conversion factor of 1.24 for use of an automatic hammer.

3) Soil parameters assume a submerged condition.

4) Very loose soils (N<2) encountered from depths 48.5 to 53.5 feet. Extend shaft tips within one shaft diameter above this layer to extend below these very loose soils.

5) Drilled shaft foundations located adjacent to slopes steeper than 4:1 may need to be lengthened to account for reduced soil capacity. Where the proposed foundations are to be located on or adjacent to a slope steeper than 4H:1V, the soil resistance contributions should be neglected above the elevation where the slope face is within a horizontal distance of three shaft diameters (3B) from the mid-point of the shafts. The distance from the ground line to this elevation should then be added back to the calculated shaft embedment length.

Structure

1Length of Drilled Shaft

(feet)

OT-1 LT 19+00.94 13.02 B-1

2Average N-Value

(blows/ft) Boring

No. Notes Soil

Type

Soil Cohesion

(psf)

3Soil Effective

Unit Weight

(pcf)

Soil Friction Angle

(degrees)

3Recommended Design High

Groundwater Depth (feet)

EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss Design - ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

GEC Project No. 5913G

ID Station Offset (feet)

0.0 - 10.0 29 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0 (5)

10.1 - 12.0 26 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

12.1 - 14.0 23 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

14.1 - 16.0 21 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

16.1 - 18.0 19 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

18.1 - 20.0 18 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

20.1 - 22.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

22.1 - 24.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

24.1 - 26.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

26.1 - 28.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

28.1 - 30.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

30.1 - 32.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

32.1 - 34.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

34.1 - 36.0 16 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

36.1 - 38.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

38.1 - 40.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

40.1 - 42.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

42.1 - 44.0 14 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

44.1 - 46.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

46.1 - 48.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

48.1 - 50.0 13 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

NOTES

1) The soil parameters for each of the listed drilled shaft length ranges are average parameters for entire drilled shaft length. Only utilize the single set of parameters provided for the associated planned drilled shaft length during shaft design.

2) N-values include an equivalent safety hammer conversion factor of 1.24 for use of an automatic hammer.

3) Soil parameters assume a submerged condition.

4) Very loose soils (N<2) encountered from depths 43.5 to 48.5 feet. Extend shaft tips within one shaft diameter above this layer to extend below these very loose soils.

5) Specialized equipment and/or procedures may be necessary to facilitate shaft excavation, dewatering and/or temporary casing installation due to very dense soil conditions.

6) Drilled shaft foundations located adjacent to slopes steeper than 4:1 may need to be lengthened to account for reduced soil capacity. Where the proposed foundations are to be located on or adjacent to a slope steeper than 4H:1V, the soil resistance contributions should be neglected above the elevation where the slope face is within a horizontal distance of three shaft diameters (3B) from the mid-point of the shafts. The distance from the ground line to this elevation should then be added back to the calculated shaft embedment length.

Boring No.

1Length of Drilled Shaft

(feet)

Structure

OT-1 RT 19+00.78 80.05 B-2

3Recommended Design High

Groundwater Depth (feet) Notes

Soil Type

3Soil Effective

Unit Weight

(pcf)

Soil Friction Angle

(degrees)

Soil Cohesion

(psf)

2Average N-Value

(blows/ft)

EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss Design - ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

GEC Project No. 5913G

ID Station Offset (feet)

0.0 - 10.0 20 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

10.1 - 12.0 19 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

12.1 - 14.0 18 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

14.1 - 16.0 19 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

16.1 - 18.0 20 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

18.1 - 20.0 21 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

20.1 - 22.0 24 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

22.1 - 24.0 26 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0 (5)

24.1 - 26.0 26 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0 (5)

26.1 - 28.0 26 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0 (5)

28.1 - 30.0 27 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

30.1 - 32.0 25 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

32.1 - 34.0 24 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

34.1 - 36.0 23 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

36.1 - 38.0 22 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

38.1 - 40.0 21 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

40.1 - 42.0 20 Cohesionless (Sand) 55 32 0 0.0

42.1 - 44.0 19 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

44.1 - 46.0 18 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

46.1 - 48.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

48.1 - 50.0 17 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

50.1 - 52.0 16 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

52.1 - 54.0 16 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0 (4)

54.1 - 56.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

56.1 - 58.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

58.1 - 60.0 15 Cohesionless (Sand) 50 30 0 0.0

NOTES

1) The soil parameters for each of the listed drilled shaft length ranges are average parameters for entire drilled shaft length. Only utilize the single set of parameters provided for the associated planned drilled shaft length during shaft design.

2) N-values include an equivalent safety hammer conversion factor of 1.24 for use of an automatic hammer.

4) Very loose soils (N<2) encountered from depths 43.5 to 53.5 feet. Extend shaft tips within one shaft diameter above this layer to extend below these very loose soils.

5) Specialized equipment and/or procedures may be necessary to facilitate shaft excavation, dewatering and/or temporary casing installation due to very dense soil conditions.

6) Drilled shaft foundations located adjacent to slopes steeper than 4:1 may need to be lengthened to account for reduced soil capacity. Where the proposed foundations are to be located on or adjacent to a slope steeper than 4H:1V, the soil resistance contributions should be neglected above the elevation where the slope face is within a horizontal distance of three shaft diameters (3B) from the mid-point of the shafts. The distance from the ground line to this elevation should then be added back to the calculated shaft embedment length.

Boring No.

Soil Cohesion

(psf)

3Recommended Design High

Groundwater Depth (feet) Notes

2Average N-Value

(blows/ft) Soil

Type

3Soil Effective

Unit Weight

(pcf)

Soil Friction Angle

(degrees)

1Length of Drilled Shaft

(feet)

Structure

OT-2 LT 25+82.82 -3.48 B-3

EPCOT Center Dr. Overhead Truss Design - ED-W-2 and ED-E-1

GEC Project No. 5913G

ID Station Offset (feet)

0.0 - 10.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

10.1 - 12.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

12.1 - 14.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

14.1 - 16.0 7 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

16.1 - 18.0 8 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

18.1 - 20.0 9 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

20.1 - 22.0 9 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

22.1 - 24.0 9 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

24.1 - 26.0 8 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

26.1 - 28.0 8 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

28.1 - 30.0 8 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

30.1 - 32.0 7 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

32.1 - 34.0 7 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

34.1 - 36.0 7 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

36.1 - 38.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0

38.1 - 40.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0 (4)

40.1 - 42.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0 (4)

42.1 - 44.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0 (4)

44.1 - 46.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0 (4)

46.1 - 48.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0 (4)

48.1 - 50.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 0.0 (4)

50.1 - 52.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 1.0

52.1 - 54.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 2.0

54.1 - 55.0 6 Cohesionless (Sand) 45 29 0 3.0

NOTES

1) The soil parameters for each of the listed drilled shaft length ranges are average parameters for entire drilled shaft length. Only utilize the single set of parameters provided for the associated planned drilled shaft length during shaft design.

2) N-values include an equivalent safety hammer conversion factor of 1.24 for use of an automatic hammer.

3) Soil parameters assume a submerged condition.

4) Very loose soils (N<2) encountered from depths 38.5 to 48.5 feet. Extend shaft tips within one shaft diameter above this layer to extend below these very loose soils.

5) Drilled shaft foundations located adjacent to slopes steeper than 4:1 may need to be lengthened to account for reduced soil capacity. Where the proposed foundations are to be located on or adjacent to a slope steeper than 4H:1V, the soil resistance contributions should be neglected above the elevation where the slope face is within a horizontal distance of three shaft diameters (3B) from the mid-point of the shafts. The distance from the ground line to this elevation should then be added back to the calculated shaft embedment length.

Structure

Boring No. Notes

2Average N-Value

(blows/ft) Soil

Type

3Soil Effective

Unit Weight

(pcf)

Soil Friction Angle

(degrees)

1Length of Drilled Shaft

(feet)

OT-2 RT 25+83.78 -78.7 B-4

Soil Cohesion

(psf)

3Recommended Design High

Groundwater Depth (feet)

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION:

EPCOT CENTER DRIVE OVERHEAD TRUSS DESIGN - ED-W-2 AND ED-E-1,

Orange County, Florida Contract No. C006819, TLP Project No. T202502.01

9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT