ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SOUTH AIRPORT TRAVEL PLAZA
DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMENT
AUGUST 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3
1.1 Design Criteria at a Glance................................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Project Background.......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 The Orlando Experience®.................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Intermodal Terminal Facility................................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 South Terminal Complex..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Travel Plaza Site............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Relationship to the Street................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Landscaping..................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Site Furnishings................................................................................................................................................ 15
4.0 Architectural Design....................................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Color and Material Palette................................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Roofing............................................................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Signage............................................................................................................................................................ 20
5.0 Sustainability/LEED/Green Design................................................................................................................ 21
1
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
The Orlando International Airport has
become well known for exhibiting
its own unique sense of place by
conveying to passengers the relaxed,
resort style environment known
and loved by residents and visitors
alike. Complementary elements of
Earth, Sky and Water, paired with
unique architecture, convenient
amenities, artwork and exceptional
customer service, work together to
exceed passenger expectations. This
atmosphere encompassing MCO
has become so well known, that
it is commonly referred to as THE
ORLANDO EXPERIENCE®.
Located in the same proximity as the
Travel Plaza site, the South Terminal
Complex (STC) is master planned
for 120 gates split between 2 unit
terminals referred to as Terminals ‘C’
and ‘D’. Terminal C is on the west side
of the infield, and a future Terminal D
will be located on the east side of the
infield. Each terminal is planned for
60 connected gates and will have their
own pair of parking garages, a northern
and southern garage for each terminal.
Each of the 4 garages will provide
approximately 5,000 spaces, totaling
20,000 spaces at the STC. Each
Terminal is planned to have a hotel site
located between the garages, which will
also serve as a connector between the
Intermodal Terminal and Terminals C
and D of the South Terminal Complex.
The Intermodal Terminal Facility (ITF)
is located in the center of the STC
site, between Terminals C and D. This
facility connects the North and South
terminals via an APM system. The
APM provides rail stations for 3 modes of rail; intercity, commuter and light rail, and also has a curbside
for linkage to ground transportation. Construction on
this facility has already commenced, and is expected
to be completed in 2017. The first phase of the STC
is anticipated to begin construction in 2017 and be
completed in late 2019. This initial phase will provide
up to 24 international and domestic gates serving 6
million annual passengers.
2
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
DESIGN CRITERIA AT A GLANCE
1.1 Design Criteria at a Glance
Section 1
Description
Page
1.0 Introduction
Purpose of criteria
3
1.1 Design Criteria at a Glance
Overview / description of criteria
4
2.0 Project Background
Development background and context
5
2.1 The Orlando Experience®
Explanation of philosophy and design strategies
6
2.2 Intermodal Terminal Facility
Design overview and contextual impact to Travel Plaza
7-8
2.3 South Terminal Complex
Design overview and future impact to South Airport Complex
9-10
3.0 Travel Plaza Site
Philosophy and zones
11
3.1 Relationship to the Street
Setbacks, screening and views
12
3.2 Landscaping
Philosophy and MCO Concept
13-14
3.3 Site Furnishings
Benches, bollards, trash recepticles and planter pots
15
4.0 Architectural Design
Philosophy, conceptual unity and overall vision
16
4.1 Color and Material Palette
Typical palette, conceptual continuity, MCO Concepts
17
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
4.2 Roofing
4.3 Signage
18-19
Philosophy and standards
20
GOAA LEED campus and sustainability goals
21
Section 5
5.0 Sustainability / LEED / Green Design
3
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.0 Project Background
The Greater Orlando Aviation
Authority (GOAA) has
determined the need for a travel
plaza in the vicinity of the South
Terminal Complex as a desired
amenity to the new development.
During research studies,
an optimal site of 25 acres
available for the development
was identified for a travel
plaza facility, cell lot and future
additional retail/commercial
development. The site is located
on the northeast corner of the
signalized intersection of Jeff
Fuqua Boulevard (future South
Access Road) and South Park
Place [access to the South
(Red) Parking Lot].
The Travel Plaza features
include, a Gas Station and
Convenience or C-Store. The
preferred amenities include
expanded restrooms and a cell
phone lot with Flight Information
Display Boards (FIDs). An option
for a future area for branded
food service is also anticipated
in the near future to coincide
with the increase of development
adjacent to the site.
The location of the Travel Plaza
will be at the main entrance
to the South Airport with good
visibility, multiple access points
and a signalized intersection.
The project site is in close
proximity to the South Parking
Lot and Taxi/Bus hold lot.
N
4
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 The Orlando Experience®
The Orlando International Airport (OIA) has become
well known for exhibiting its own unique sense of
place by conveying to its passengers the relaxed,
resort style environment known and loved
by residents and visitors alike. Complementary
elements of Earth, Sky and Water, paired with
unique architecture, convenient amenities, artwork
and exceptional customer service work together to
exceed passenger expectations. This atmosphere
encompassing MCO has become so well known,
that it is commonly referred to as THE ORLANDO
EXPERIENCE®.
The Orlando Experience® conceptually preserves
what visitors and residents come to love about
the natural environment of Central Florida. It is
important that projects at the airport work to retain
these natural qualities whenever possible, as they
collectively contribute to the traveler’s experience
as a whole. This includes the use of open spaces,
native landscaping, a cohesive color palette, open/
outdoor pedestrian space and much more.
New River, Florida
View of the Hyatt atrium at OIA
5
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.2 Intermodal Terminal Facility
The South Airport Travel Plaza site sits across the
street from the future Intermodal Terminal Facility
(ITF), which is currently under construction and
slated for completion in 2017. The ITF will house
stations for up to three rail modes, including
SunRail, Inter-city Passenger Rail, and Light Rail.
From the ITF, there is connectivity to the North
Terminal Complex via an automated people mover
system that has a station within the facility.
The Intermodal Terminal is organized along a
strong east-west axis, commonly referred to as
The Spine. This axis serves as the connection
avenue for passenger movement between rail
modes, and eventually will bridge across to the
future South Terminal Complex. The Spine of
the ITF is designed with openness and visibility
utilizing a king-post truss system to span long
distances without structural interruption. The
Spine was designed with transparency in
mind, utilizing glass walls wherever possible to
emphasize the movement and activity within the
terminal.
Intermodal Terminal Front Entry
Automated People Mover Platform
Intermodal Terminal Spine
6
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.2 Intermodal Terminal Facility
The South Airport Automated People Mover and
Intermodal Terminal Facility was designed to be
the next generation of The Orlando Experience®.
The facility's design integrates the natural
landscape features of Earth, Water, and Sky
within a modern building shell. Drop-off curbs
for travelers arriving at the building entry are
accented by Florida-friendly landscaping to
welcome passnegers to Orlando. The native
flora also provides those travelers one more
reminder of Central Florida before departing. The
landscaping concept extends into the interior
space with natural foliage highlighted by a water
wall behind the reception desk.
Intermodal Terminal Garage Entry
Intersecting barrel elements highlight a crossroads
in transportation, marking the connection between
all modes of rail transportation and the future
air terminal. Metal panels, precast concrete,
natural stone and glass materials all combine
to help create a facility that highlights various
transportation modes, while providing modern
passenger amenities.
Passenger Drop Off Lobby Entry
Intermodal Terminal Front Facade
7
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.3 South Terminal Complex
The first phase of the South Terminal Complex (STC)
will house 16 gates with flexibility to accommodate
up to 21 narrowbody aircraft. The terminal is being
designed to provide Orlando International Airport with
added international and domestic capacity through the
use of 16 connected swing gates. The facility is being
designed with flexibility in mind, allowing incremental
expansion as demand drives the need for facility
growth.
The South Terminal Complex brings with it great
demand for an on-site travel plaza. Rental car traffic,
privately owned vehicle drop-offs and pick-ups,
commercial curbs, through traffic and a cell phone
waiting lot come along with the first phase of the STC,
and will bring with them a major demand for a travel
plaza facility.
N
Phase 1 STC - 16/24 Gates
Full Terminal C Build-Out
8
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.3 South Terminal Complex
The South Terminal Complex (STC) is master planned
for 120 gates split between 2 unit terminals referred
to as Terminals C and D. Terminal C is on the west side
of the infield, and future Terminal D will be located on
the east side of the infield. Each terminal is planned
for 60 connected gates. Both are planned to have their
own pair of parking garages, a northern and southern
garage for each terminal. Each of the 4 garages will
provide approximately 5,000 spaces, totaling 20,000
spaces at the STC. Each Terminal is planned to have a
hotel site located between the garages, which will also
serve as a connector between the Intermodal Terminal
and Terminals C and D of the South Terminal Complex.
N
Terminal C Master Plan
Full Terminal C Build-Out
9
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
TRAVEL PLAZA SITE
3.0 Travel Plaza Site
The approximately 2.5 acre
site for the South Airport
Travel Plaza is located at the
corner of Jeff Fuqua Blvd,
and South Park Place. This
location is centrally located
between the North Terminal
and future South Terminal,
providing travelers with an
opportunity to fill up with
gas before returning their
rental cars, or grab a snack
while waiting to pick up
arriving passengers from the
terminal. With the amount
of traffic that travels along
Jeff Fuqua Blvd daily, this
location also looks to serve
the airport’s employees,
patrons and the surrounding
community.
The site is also located
near the future South
Terminal Complex which is
ultimately planned with 60
connected swing gates, two
5,000 car garages (10,000
total spaces), a ground
transportation center and
a 500-room hotel. This
facility is scheduled to open
in 2019, and will have a
significant impact on the
traffic into and around the
Travel Plaza site.
N
Conceptual Site Plan
10
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
TRAVEL PLAZA SITE
3.1 Relationship to the Street
It is important for any development on airport
property to adhere to the principles of The
Orlando Experience®, and the perception
of the project from the corner of Jeff Fuqua
Blvd, and South Park Place is the most
prominently impacted to drivers. Drive-up
appeal should be complemented through
the use of landscaping and natural buffers,
providing an appealing perception of the
project site without limiting views to the
travel plaza or required product and pricing
displays.
In order to maintain a common sense of
character, all parcels on the site should be
developed to relate to the public street in
a manner implying a sense of arrival. It is
especially important that these frontages
face towards Jeff Fuqua Blvd, as the
majority of drivers utilize this route primarily
when traveling through the airport complex.
As with any development along major
roadways, buildings should be set back
from the street edge to allow for landscape
and hardscape buffers and any potential
drainage swales required for Jeff Fuqua Blvd
or the Travel Plaza.
N
Street View of Travel Plaza Site
11
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
TRAVEL PLAZA SITE
3.2 Landscaping
As a major feature making up part of The Orlando
Experience®, landscaping is extensively apparent
throughout the Orlando International Airport
property, both inside terminal facilities, as well as
outdoors. Natural Florida style landscaping makes
up the majority of the plant life on airport property,
and instances of ornamental landscaping feature
themselves at key locations throughout the complex.
Color is another important element of plantlife that
should be incorporated within any development
on airport property and can be used to effectively
highlight tenant development spaces.
Landscaping for the Travel Plaza should provide
visual separation between the major roadways
and parkings areas, define major entryways and
circulation, and instill The Orlando Experience® within
the project. Landscape design should include simple,
clean lines complemented by various textures,
natural color palettes and high-quality materials. A
combination of natural elements and planting patterns
along with more rigid design aspects in the public
access areas will better define zones for pedestrian
use and open space.
Flowers at OIA
Sustainable design is a key airport initiative, and
as such all projects on airport property should be
sustainably planned and constructed. Landscaping
for the Travel Plaza should adhere to sustainable
design principles, including plant selection, irrigation
systems, recycled materials and many more.
Roadside Landscape Buffer
Hyatt Fountain Plaza at OIA
Tall Palms and Screening Elements
12
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
TRAVEL PLAZA SITE
3.2 Landscaping
Accompanying this travel plaza site is the potential
for a cell phone waiting area (cell lot). This cell lot will
attract passengers who will likely dwell in the cell lot,
driving up business for the cell lot, and also requiring
additional attention to detail. A landscaped patio
area adjacent to the cell lot would be a great amenity
for travelers, and would provide the travel plaza a
place for customers to relax. Pedestrian walkways
to and from the cell lot and travel plaza should be
landscaped to bring The Orlando Experience® to
the project site. Complementing the path with trees,
shrubs and ornamental elements will tie the overall
site together into one unified design experience.
As a part of the GOAA design criteria standards,
all loading docks, refuse collection areas, outside
storage and other service related elements are
required to be screened from view from any main
public roads and access ways. Landscaping is
an effective means of screening many unsightly
elements required by tenant operations, allowing
a tenant the opportunity to create an aesthetically
attractive solution to hiding unpleasant elements.
Landscaped Pedestrian Walk in Jupiter, FL
Larger Scale Screening
Transformer Screening Example
13
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
TRAVEL PLAZA SITE
3.3 Site Furnishings
Site furnishings provided by the leaseholder should
complement the architecture in a way that supports
the overall concept driven through The Orlando
Experience®. Contemporary, functional and adaptable
elements should be considered ensuring that the
features are durable enough to sustain the Central
Florida climate, as well as constant use by travelers.
Natural materials should be used when possible
to create inviting spaces for travelers to dwell and
limiting the use of concrete furnishings whenever
possible.
Furnishings should be sized and spaced to allow for
open flow of travelers, while still defining pedestrian
friendly zones. Where seating areas are to be
provided, bollards protecting pedestrian zones from
vehicular roadways should be installed. Painted pipe
bollards are not permitted except for service areas
not visible to the public.
Furnishings of Similar Style
Providing travelers with amenities and seating will
be important to give customers protection from the
Central Florida heat and sunlight. The introduction
of shade structures within the design for the Travel
Plaza will alleviate the harsh conditions and offer
covered seating areas for travelers.
A variety of furnishings is acceptable, but the
material palette should complement the architecture
and the overall aesthetic that exists at Orlando
International Airport. The number of different types
of seating, planter pots, trash recepticles and other
site furnishings should be limited to maintain a highquality appearance true to The Orlando Experience®.
Shade Structure Integrated with Landscaping
Modern Benches Highlighting Natural Material
14
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
4.0 Architectural Design
The design goal for the Travel Plaza is to integrate
the new facility within the context of Orlando
International Airport. In order to successfully
accomplish this, design cues should be taken from
the contextual elements surrounding this site.
Concepts present in the North Terminal Complex,
South Airport APM and Intermodal Terminal Facility,
and the future South Terminal Complex should be
studied and reinterpreted to better integrate the
Travel Plaza into the overall design of the airport.
Key architectural elements, such as the fabric
canopies over the passenger curbs, barrelled
geometries existing throughout the South Airport APM
and Intermodal Terminal, translucent / transparent
materiality to emphasize openness and daylight,
and natural landscaping commonly found in Central
Florida should manifest themselves in the design of
the Travel Plaza.
Fabric Canopies of North Terminal Complex
The Orlando Experience® should be the overarching
unifying element for the entire airport complex.
Concepts that bring in the natural elements of
Central Florida will strengthen the tie between all of
the various architectural works on airport property.
Emphasis on transparency, openness and nature,
along with complementary architectural design will
strengthen the ties between all public, on-airport
property development.
Curved Metal Roof of Intermodal Terminal
Landscape Area at Rent-A-Car in North Terminal Complex
15
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
4.1 Color and Material Palette
In keeping with The Orlando Experience®, building
exteriors should utilize neutral earth-tone color
palettes along with materials with texture and
character. Colors that align with the natural concept
for OIA are: warm or cool gray, beige, off-white,
brown and certain metallic colors. Dark colors should
be avoided as a primary building color, but may be
used as accent colors.
Accent colors should be selected to complement
the primary building colors, and may be represented
on the building facade in areas, such as window
mullions, cornices, and other architectural elements.
In fitting with tenant design guidelines throughout
the airport complex, unique branding colors
may be used in limited areas, and are subject to
additional approval by the GOAA Design Review
Committee (DRC). Building facades are not to act
as advertisements or billboards, and all branding
/ accent colors should be proportional to the
architectural facade design.
A minimum of three materials should be used in a
significant manner for articultaion of the facade.
These materials should adhere to the Airport
standards of “natural finish materials”. These natural
finish materials include:
- Glass
- Stone
- Anodized aluminum
- Painted steel
- Unpainted brick
- Factory finished metal panels
Intermodal Terminal Glass Entry
Native Florida Stone Facade
These and other proposed materials will be subject
to review by the GOAA DRC. Corrugated or metal
signing does not adhere to the principles of The
Orlando Experience®, and are thus not acceptable as
exterior finish at the Travel Plaza.
Various Metal Panel Finishes on Amway Center, Orlando FL
16
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
4.2 Roofing
Roof materiality should complement the strategies
that contribute to The Orlando Experience®.
Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest
and reduce the scale of larger buildings. Roof shapes
should conform to low-slope, shed or hip roof styles.
Mansard, gable and full barrel roof forms should not
be used for the Travel Plaza.
Materials that are light in color are recommended
due to positive sustainable benefits, as well as
an appealing appearance to the many travelers
observing the project from the air. A glare/reflectivity
study will be required in order to verify architectural
and material selection does not interfere with FAA
standards of operation.
Tensile Fabric Canopy Option
®
In fitting with The Orlando Experience , all rooftop
equipment should be screened from view from
the streets in a manner that is architecturally
consistent with the building as a whole. Parapet
walls and louvers should be finished in a matching
or complementary style and material to the facade
and/or roof. Any vents, tanks or stacks that cannot
be screened should be designed, finished, and
integrated with the overall aesthetic of the building.
Shed Roof Option
Flat Canopy Option
17
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
4.2 Roofing
Low-Slope Roof
Low-slope roofing is typically installed at slopes
of less than 2:12 and includes single-ply, modified
bitumen and other similar systems. Low-slope roofing
must be concealed behind parapets. Due to the
high visibility of the Travel Plaza from the air, roof
elements such as traffic pads and other equipment
should be organized with care. Low-slope roofing
systems should utilize internal drains for drainage.
Overflow scuppers may be visible provided their
placement and detailing harmonizes with the overall
façade design.
Pitched Roofs
Pitched roofs are defined as exposed, straight-run
roofs with a slope greater than 2:12, and should
not exceed 4:12. Any exposed pitched roofs for the
Travel Plaza must be clad in architectural grade metal
with no exposed fasteners. Exposed architectural
roofing may have visible gutters and downspouts
that are clearly detailed and articulated as part of the
overall building design.
Low-Slope roof with Sun-Shading Louvers
Curved Roofs
It is important that curved roof forms be graceful
and low arcs. Barrel vaults of 180-degree radius or
semicircular are not permitted at the Travel Plaza.
Other than the slope qualifications, all standards
listed for pitched roofs apply to curved roofs as well.
Tensile Canopies
The use of fabric canopies is yet another option for
use at the Travel Plaza. The fabric canopies at the
North Terminal Complex (pictured right) provide
translucent cover for passenger areas. These
diffuse the sunlight during the day, and bring drama
by utilizing uplighting at night. The tensile canopy
concept has been translated to the South Airport
garages in similar fashion, providing a continuation of
concept throughout the airport complex and helping
to unify the design of the entire airport.
Sweeping Canopy and Building Concept
Tensile Canopy Mimicking the NTC Canopy Geometry
18
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
4.3 Signage
The Airport’s approach to signage is that it be used
to support wayfinding and not advertising. Signage
should be controlled, and all installations for the
Travel Plaza must be reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Committee (DRC).
Signage should be designed to complement the
architectural design of the building it serves. All signs,
unless otherwise approved by the DRC, must provide
a minimum of 9 feet of clearance if located above a
sidewalk or other pedestrian area.
Building Mounted Signs
Signage attached to the face of the building should be
architecturally compatible with the design aesthetic of
the building. Signage should be oriented to achieve
maximum visibility from the public roadway in order
to support efficient wayfinding. All signs should be
designed as an integral part of any storefront design,
with letter size and location scaled appropriately and
proportioned with the overall design aesthetic.
Typical Interior Illuminated Building Sign
Occupant Identification Signs
Building occupant(s) are allowed to install
identification on the face of the building following
below guidelines and approval of the DRC and
applicable city code requirements:
1. Identification signage must support wayfinding, not
advertising.
2. All building-mounted signage should identify
individual occupant names and/or logos only.
3. Individual letters should project no more than 18
inches from the mounting surface.
4. Signs should be internally illuminated, no
floodlighting is permitted.
5. Signs should be static. No movement is permitted
in the sign or lighting design. No blinking allowed.
6. Signs must be mounted to a solid building surface,
and must not project above the roof line.
7. Sign height should not exceed a maximum height
of eight feet, and should not exceed 150 square feet.
Building Address Sign
The address numbers for the building should be
visible from the main road at the main entry in 12-inch
high numbers. Additional numbers may be installed
on the building facing the roadway.
Internally and Back Lighting Combination
Reverse Channel Lighting
19
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
SUSTAINABILITY / LEED / GREEN DESIGN
5.0 Sustainability / LEED / Green Design
GOAA continues to seek opportunities to maximize
efficiencies throughout its airport properties. Using
sustainable planning, design and construction
practices within its renovations and new
construction projects is an integral part of these
efforts. To accomplish this, GOAA will revisit its
Design Guidelines Manual procedures and upgrade
its content to include preference to integrated
design methodology and building performance
information. The U.S. Green Business Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Certification will be used as a baseline on
most new vertical construction projects and major
renovations.
GOAA is committed to a sustainable future and has
created a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP)
that outlines the areas of focus for the airport. The
South Airport Complex has been designated as a
LEED™ v4 Campus, which means that any project
located within the Campus can take advantage of
the Master Site credits associated with the campus
in order to pursue LEED certification. For more
information, please contact Mark Birkebak,
mbirkebak@goaa.org, Director of Engineering.
20
South Airport Travel Plaza
Design Criteria Document
㐀⸀
㐀
NADIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Civil, Environmental, and Geotechnical Consultants
July 14, 2015
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3660 Maguire Blvd., Suite 200
Orlando, FL 32803
Attention:
Mr. Brian Ashby, E.I.
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza and Cell Lot
Orlando International Airport
Orlando, Orange County, Florida
NES Project No. R15-011
Dear Mr. Ashby:
Nadic Engineering Services, Inc. (NES) has completed a geotechnical subsurface exploration
and evaluation at the site of the proposed South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza and Cell Lot,
Orlando International Airport, Florida. This report presents our field exploration and testing
methods, and our recommendation based on the data collected during the geotechnical
exploration.
NES appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and
Orlando International Airport on this project. We look forward to a continued association.
Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance to you as this
project proceeds.
Sincerely,
NADIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Engineering Business No. 8214
Mustafa Syed,
Staff Engineer
Godwin N. Nnadi, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Engineer
FL Registration No. 50637
Airports: OIA\Kimley-Horn\Stormwater Facility-South Airport travel Plaza\Working folder\Report
NES
Office:
Phone:
Fax:
Email: nadic@nadicinc.com
601 N. Hart Boulevard,
Orlando, Florida 32818
(407) 521-4771
(407) 521-4772
15291 NW 60th Avenue, Suite 106
Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
(305) 512 0687
(305) 512 0897
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page i of ii
July 14, 2015
Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES...................................................................................... 1
3.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA ............................................................................................... 2
3.1 USGS Topographic Map.......................................................................................................... 2
3.2 USDA, NRCS Soil Survey ...................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Potentiometric Surface Map .................................................................................................... 3
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM AND METHODS ............................................................ 3
4.1 Field Exploration Program ....................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Field Exploration Methods ...................................................................................................... 3
4.2.1 Hand Auger Borings ..................................................................................................... 3
4.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Borings ............................................................................... 4
4.2.3 Muck Probe ................................................................................................................... 4
4.2.4 Field Permeability Test ................................................................................................. 4
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 5
5.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Stormwater Pond and Exploratory Boring Results ................................................................. 5
5.3 Muck Probe Results ................................................................................................................. 6
5.4 Field Permeability Test Results ............................................................................................... 6
5.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 6
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................ 7
7.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 7
7.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 7
7.2 Groundwater Control................................................................................................................ 8
7.3 Shallow Spread Foundations ................................................................................................... 8
7.4 Stormwater Management Ponds .............................................................................................. 8
7.5 Pond Borrow Suitability........................................................................................................... 9
8.0 CONSTRUCION CONSIDERATION .......................................................................................... 9
8.1 General ...................................................................................................................................... 9
8.2 Excavation .............................................................................................................................. 10
9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 10
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page ii of ii
July 14, 2015
Table of Contents - Continued
APPENDICIES
Appendix A
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Table 2
Table 3A
Table 3B
Aerial Map
USGS Topographic Map
USDA/NRCS Soils Map
Potentiometric Surface Map
Boring Location Map
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Soil Parameters for Proposed Wet Pond
Soil Parameters for Proposed Dry Pre-Treatment Pond
Appendix B
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
Sheet 3
Report of SPT Borings
Report of SPT and Auger Borings
Report of Muck Probe
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 1 of 11
July 14, 2015
1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
….the Orlando International
Airport (OIA) is planning a
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard
Travel Plaza and Cell Lot at
the
Orlando
International
Airport. The … includes a
Travel Plaza Building, Gas
Canopy,
Stormwater
Management Areas.
We understand that the Orlando International Airport (OIA)
is planning a South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza and
Cell Lot at the Orlando International Airport, Florida. The
proposed facility includes a Travel Plaza Building, Gas
Canopy, and Stormwater Management Areas.
The
stormwater management areas include a wet detention pond
and a dry pre-treatment pond. The proposed South Jeff Fuqua
Boulevard Travel Plaza and Cell Lot is located south of the
airport, east of Jeff Fuqua Boulevard, west of South
Taxis/Bus Hold Lot and north of South Park Place.
The site is currently covered with heavy vegetation and appears relatively flat. The project site is
generally located within Section 10, Township 24 South and Range 30 East in Orange County,
Florida. The project location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to obtain preliminary information on the general subsurface
conditions including soil and groundwater conditions in order to make geotechnical engineering
assessments and recommendations to guide the conceptual design of the proposed South Jeff
Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza and Cell Lot. The following services were provided in order to
achieve the preceding objectives.
1. Reviewed readily available published geologic and topographic information. This
published information was obtained from the appropriate Quadrangle Maps published by
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and “Soil Survey of Orange County,
Florida” published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2. Visited site to evaluate existing conditions and drilling accessibility.
3. Executed a program of subsurface exploration consisting of the following:
a) Performed two (2) Standard Penetration Test borings to a depth of 25 feet below
existing grade at the location of the proposed stormwater pond.
b) Preformed four (4) auger exploratory borings to a depth of five (5) feet within the
project area.
c) Performed one (1) 10-foot SPT and field permeability test at the location of the
proposed dry pre-treatment pond.
4. Measured the existing groundwater table at the individual boring locations and estimated
normal wet seasonal high groundwater table depths.
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 2 of 11
July 14, 2015
5. Visually classified and stratified representative soil samples in the laboratory using the
Unified Soil Classification System. Performed laboratory testing of selected soil samples
to evaluate the basic index and engineering properties of the encountered soils.
6. Prepared this formal engineering report summarizing the field exploration, laboratory
tests, engineering analyses, evaluations and recommendations.
3.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA
3.1 USGS Topographic Map
The "Pine Castle, Florida" United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map issued in
1953 (photo revised in 1980) were reviewed. The map shows the ground surface elevation in the
project vicinity to range from about +80 to + 85 feet, North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NAVD-88). The project area is shown on an excerpt of the USGS topographic map presented on
Figure 2 in Appendix A.
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. Refer to
Figure 3 in Appendix A for a reproduction of the NRCS map for the project area. Soils found in
the project vicinity are listed below.
Table 1
Orange County Soil Survey Summery
Soil Unit
Ona fine Sand
(26)
Smyrna Fine
Sand (44)
Depth
(in.)
Soil Description
USCS*
AASHTO**
0-6
Fine sand
SP, SP-SM
A-3
6-15
Fine sand, sand
15-80
Fine sand, sand
0-17
Fine sand
SP, SP-SM
A-3, A-2-4
17- 27
Sand, fine sand, loamy
fine sand
SM, SPSM
A-3, A-2-4
27-80
Sand, fine sand
SP, SP-SM
A-3
SP-SM,
SM
SP-SM,
SM
A-3, A-2-4
USDA
SHGWT***
(ft.)
0-1.0
A-3, A-2-4
0-1.0
*USCS:
Unified Soil Classification System
**AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
***SHGWT: Seasonal High Groundwater Table
Information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey is very general and may be outdated due to
recent development in the site vicinity. Therefore, it may not reflect the actual soil and
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 3 of 11
July 14, 2015
groundwater conditions, particularly if development has modified the natural soil conditions or
surface and near surface drainage.
3.3 Potentiometric Surface Map
Based on review of the “Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the St. Johns
River Water Management District and Vicinity, Florida, May 2009” map, published by the
USGS, the elevation of the potentiometric surface at the project site appears to be approximately
+40 feet, NAVD-88. A portion of this map is presented on Figure 4 in Appendix A.
4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM AND METHODS
4.1 Field Exploration Program
To evaluate the subsurface and surface conditions within the project limits, several field visits
were conducted to establish drilling equipment access, layout and stake boring locations, and
coordinate underground utility locations and markings. The subsurface conditions in the area
were evaluated by performing limited soil explorations, including two (2) 25 foot borings for the
wet detention pond, one (1) boring to 10 feet for the dry pond and four (4) five (5) feet deep
exploratory borings. Muck probing was also performed in the wetland within the project area.
All borings were backfilled upon completion and after groundwater measurement for safety. All
borings were staked and located in the field by a representative of NES with the aid of a Global
Positioning System (GPS) device. Although the locations of the boring were only
approximations, the methods used to locate the borings are, in NES’s opinion, sufficient to meet
the intent of our study.
Boring profile completed for BP-408 by NES in 2014 was incorporated into this report.
The approximate boring locations are presented on Figure 5, in Appendix A. The results of the
exploration program in the form of soil profiles are shown on Sheets 1 and 2 in Appendix B.
Report of Muck Probe is presented on Sheet 3 in Appendix B.
4.2 Field Exploration Methods
4.2.1 Hand Auger Borings
Hand auger borings were performed first to a depth of five (5) feet below the existing grade for all
borings. The hand auger was performed by manually twisting and advancing a bucket auger into
the ground in four (4) to six (6) inch increments. These borings were performed in general
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-1452.
As each soil type was revealed, representative samples were placed in air-tight bags and returned to
our laboratory for further visual examination and classification by a geotechnical engineer.
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 4 of 11
July 14, 2015
4.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Borings
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed in general accordance with ASTM test
designation D-1586. Soil sampling using a 13/8 inch diameter (ID) split-barrel sampler was
performed at closely spaced intervals from the ground surface to 10 feet below existing grade. After
seating the sampler six inches, the number of successive blows required to drive the sampler 12
inches into the soil constitutes the test result commonly referred to as the “N” value. The “N” value
has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered indicative of the
relative density of non-cohesive soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The recovered splitbarrel samples were described in the field with representative portions of the samples places in
airtight bags and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing by a
geotechnical engineer. Following completion, the SPT borings were backfilled for safety.
4.2.3 Muck Probe
Muck probing was performed by NES personnel within the wetland to delineate the extent of muck,
if present. The approximate locations of the muck probes are shown on Sheet 3 in Appendix B.
Muck probing was performed by advancing a 0.5 inch diameter steel rod through the surficial soft
sediments/organics until manual refusal is achieved. Generally, it can be pushed through soft
organic and/or clayey soils, and terminate upon encountering sandy soils or relatively stiff clay.
Muck probes, however, cannot detect peat or muck layers that are present beneath layers of sand or
dense soils, which cannot be penetrated. In addition, no soil samples are typically collected for
visual classification and laboratory testing. Therefore, in muck probing, the soil type is referred
solely by evaluating the relative resistance of the soil to penetration. These limitations can lead to
misrepresentation of the extent and thickness of muck layer. It is not recommended that muck probe
data be used for earthwork quantity estimates except on a very preliminary basis.
4.2.4 Field Permeability Test
In-situ head falling head permeability test was performed by NES personnel at the proposed
location of the dry pre-treatment pond. The field permeability test was performed by placing a 2
inch diameter casing into an augered hole to the desired depth and washing the soils out of the
casing with water. The casing was backfilled with silica quartz sand to about 12 inches above the
bottom of the casing. The casing was then raised to an average distance of about 12 inches.
Falling head permeability was performed by adding water to the casing to achieve a stable water
level. When the water level is stabilized, the water source was removed and the drop in water
level in the casing with respect to time was recorded. This relationship was used to calculate the
permeability of the soil in general conformance with NAVFAC DM-7-1-108. The result of the
field head permeability test is included in the Field Permeability Results section of this report
and on Table 3B in Appendix A.
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 5 of 11
July 14, 2015
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 General
The encountered soils were classified using the AASHTO
Soil Classification System (A-3, A-2-4, etc.), and described
using the ASTM soil descriptions such as sand with silt. Soil
classification and stratification are based on visual
examination of the recovered soil samples, laboratory testing
on selected soil samples, and interpretation of field boring
logs by geotechnical engineer. The stratification lines
represent approximate boundaries between soil types of
significantly different engineering properties; however, the actual transition between layers may
be gradual.
The
stratification
lines
represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types
of significantly different
engineering
properties;
however, actual transition
between soils may be gradual.
The boring profiles indicate 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 South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza and Cell
Lot. A specific description of the soil conditions and relative density is provided in the soil
profiles.
5.2 Stormwater Pond and Exploratory Boring Results
The majority of the borings encountered fine sand with varying amounts of silt (Strata 1 and 2)
(A-3, A-2-4). However, Borings SPT-2 and LS-2 completed encountered clayey fine sand
(Stratum 3) (A-2-6). For further details refer to the pond boring profiles on Sheets 1 and 2 in
Appendix B.
The soil strata encountered, soil descriptions, AASHTO classifications and FDOT 505
Embankment Soil Utilization designations are summarized below:
Stratum
1
2
3
Soil Description
Light brown to dark brown fine SAND to fine SAND with silt
and root
Light brown to dark brown silty fine SAND
Light brown clayey fine SAND
AASHTO
FDOT Index 505
Classification
(A-3)
Select (S)
(A-2-4)
(A-2-6)
Select (S)
Plastic (P)
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 6 of 11
July 14, 2015
5.3 Muck Probe Results
The muck probes performed within the wetland area indicated surficial soft soil with thickness
ranging from three (3) inches to 41 inches. The probing results are presented in the Report of Muck
Probe Results on Sheets 3 in Appendix B. Shown below is a summary of the results of organic
content of selected muck probe samples
.
Summary of Muck Probing Results
Muck Probe
Location
MP-11
MP-32
MP-36
MP-55
Organic
Content (%)
7
6
9
11
Moisture
Content (%)
42
47
53
55
Approximate Thickness of Surficial
Organic Soils (inches)
8
27
34
12
In general, the shallow organic deposits observed at wetland area lie within the feasible range for
demucking and should be replaced with competent fill materials. Demucking should occur in
accordance with FDOT Standard Index 500. Removal of topsoil and shallow surficial organic
soil deposit should be accomplished in accordance with FDOT Standard Specification for Road
and Bridge Construction, Section 110.
5.4 Field Permeability Test Result
Field permeability test was performed in the proposed location of the dry pre-treatment pond at
depth of 2.5 feet below existing grade to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the in-situ soils.
Estimated coefficient of horizontal permeability (Kh) result for the representative samples are
presented on Table 3B in Appendix A. For the soil types encountered at the borings, a
transformation ratio of 1.5 can be considered appropriate.
5.5 Groundwater
Groundwater encountered at the project site ranged from one (1) foot to five (5) feet below the
existing grade at the time of our field exploration (September 2014 and June 2015).
Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as
the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as
swales, drainage ponds, underdrains, and areas of covered soil (roadways, sidewalks, etc.).
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. “Normal rainfall year’ is defined as a year in which rainfall
quantity and distribution were at or near historical rainfall averages. The estimated seasonal high
groundwater levels presented next to the boring profiles (Sheets 1 and 2 in Appendix B) are
based on the soil stratigraphy, measured groundwater levels, USDA/NRCS information, review
of roadway plans, and past experience with similar soil conditions. In general, the estimated
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 7 of 11
July 14, 2015
seasonal high groundwater level is not intended to define a limit or ensure future seasonal
fluctuations in groundwater levels will not exceed the estimated levels. Post-development
groundwater levels could exceed the seasonal high groundwater level estimates as a result of a
series of rainfall events, changed conditions at the site which alter surface water drainage
characteristics, or variations in the duration, intensity, or total volume of rainfall.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples were retained from the soil strata encountered in each boring and
returned to NES's laboratory for visual classification and stratification. The soil samples were
classified using the Unified Soil Classification Systems (USCS) in general accordance with all
ASTM D-2488, titled “Standard practice for description and identification of soils (Visual-Manual
procedure) ASTM D-2487 titled Standard Test for Classification of soils in Engineering Purpose”.
The classification was based on visual observation only. Laboratory classification tests consisting
of sieve analysis, natural moisture content and organic content were performed on selected soil
samples. The results of our laboratory testing are presented on Table 2 in Appendix A and on the
Report of SPT Borings (Sheets 1 and 2 in Appendix B). The types of tests performed with their
associated test designations are presented below.
Laboratory Testing Performed
Test Type
FDOT
ASTM
Grain Size Analysis
FM 1-T 088
D-422
Moisture Content
FM 1-T 265
D-2216
Atterberg Limits
FM 1-T 089 and FM 1-T 090
D-4318
Organic Content
FM 1-T2 67
D 2974
7.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
The evaluation and recommendations contained in this report are based in part on the data
obtained from a limited number of soil samples and subsurface conditions. The exploration
methods used indicate subsurface conditions at specific boring locations only, at the time they
were performed and to the depths penetrated. Borings cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect
the variations that usually exist between boring locations and these variations may not become
evident until construction. If variations from the conditions described in this report become
evident during the course of construction, or project characteristics described in this report
change, NES should be retained to re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendations contained
in this report in light of such changes.
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 8 of 11
July 14, 2015
Design and construction of the proposed development should be cognizant of the groundwater table
at the site. Additional field explorations are recommended for site specific projects within this
project area.
7.2 Groundwater Control
Groundwater table fluctuates seasonally depending upon intensity and duration of rainfall and
presence and proximity of any artificial drainage facilities. Based on the encountered subsurface
condition, the groundwater may be controlled by the existing drainage system consisting of
lakes, swales, cross drains and storm trench line sewers.
It is anticipated that groundwater level will affect the proposed construction; we recommend the
contract documents should require the contractor to be responsible for all dewatering, regardless
of the groundwater level. We recommend the groundwater table be maintained at least two feet
below all earthwork and bearing level during construction. Control of groundwater should be
completed in accordance with FDOT Standard Specifications. Lack of proper controls could
result in ponding surface water on compaction surfaces which will impede or prevent necessary
soil compaction operations and make construction trafficability difficult.
7.3 Shallow Spread Foundations
We understand a Travel Plaza building is proposed at the project site. Based upon the
information provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and the results of our limited field
exploration, it is NES's opinion that the encountered soil deposits within the project limits of our
study are generally suitable for the proposed construction. We therefore recommend additional
geotechnical investigation to be performed for this building.
7.4 Stormwater Management Ponds
Two new stormwater management ponds, Wet Pond and Dry Pre-treatment Pond are proposed.
The soil conditions encountered at the stormwater management ponds are represented by the
borings shown on Sheets 1 and 2 in Appendix B. The majority of borings encountered fine sand
to fine sand with varying silt content (Strata 1 and 2). Stratum 3, clayey fine sand was also
encountered.
The groundwater table was encountered at depths varying from two (2) to four (4) feet below
existing grade. It should be noted that groundwater levels tend to fluctuate during periods of
prolonged drought and extended rainfall, and may be affected by man-made influences.
The soil parameters for the proposed wet Pond and Dry Pre-treatment Pond are presented in
Table 3A and 3B respectively.
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 9 of 11
July 14, 2015
7.5 Pond Borrow Suitability
Although this is a preliminary subsurface exploration, we anticipate the contractor would attempt
to reuse the soils excavated from the pond areas for the existing pond infilling or for
construction. The suitability of the soil types encountered in the ponds is discussed below.
Stratum 1 (A-3)
Stratum 1 soils are classified as Select (S) soils. These soils generally have fine contents of less
than 10 percent and are commonly referred to as “clean sands”. These soils are highly desirable
for use as fill because they drain freely. They may be used as embankment soil provided they
satisfy the graduation requirements indicated in the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction.
Stratum 2 (A-2-4)
Stratum 2 soils are classified as Select (S) soils. These soils consist of sands with varying fines
contents with little or no plasticity. These soils may retain excess moisture and may be difficult
to dry and compact. They require close attention to moisture content to use successfully as fill.
Suitable compaction of these soils is generally achieved across a narrow range of moisture.
Because of complications associated with reusing these soils, it is our recommendation that
Stratum 2 should be utilized at least four (4) feet below the base course as per index 505 of the
FDOT Design Standard; otherwise they should be disposed and replaced with Select (S) soils.
Stratum 3 (A-2-6)
Stratum 3 soils are classified as Plastic (P) soils. These soils consist of sands with a significant
amount of clay and exhibit slightly plastic to plastic texture. These soils do not drain as Select
(S) soils. These soils may be used for embankment construction above the existing ground water
level, as long as they are kept out of the subgrade portion of the roadbed. They require close
attention to moisture content to use successfully as fill. Suitable compaction of these soils is
generally achieved across a narrow range of moisture. Because of complications associated with
reusing these soils, it is our recommendation that Stratum 3 should be utilized at least four (4)
feet below the base course as per index 505 of the FDOT Design Standard; otherwise they should
be disposed and replaced with Select (S) soils.
8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 General
Prior to placing fill or any excavation, all vegetation, topsoil and any otherwise unsuitable material
should be removed from the construction areas. Wet or dry material should either be removed or
moisture conditioned and re-compacted. After clearing, stripping and grubbing, and achieving the
required cut grades, the exposed surface should be proofrolled to help in locating loose or soft
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 10 of 11
July 14, 2015
areas. Proof rolling should be performed with appropriate heavy equipment to obtain a minimum
compaction 95 percent of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557)
for a depth of 12 inches below proof-rolled surface. Unstable soil should be removed and replaced
with suitable backfill material and compacted to achieve the required density.
Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture
content prior to construction. The site should be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on
prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated or
disturbed, the affected material should be removed or be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to construction.
If needed, backfill should generally consist of select materials (A-3) and (A-2-4) compacted in
accordance with the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Removal
of organic materials and plastic soils within the project limits should be accomplished in
accordance with the FDOT Index No. 500 unless otherwise shown on the plans.
8.2 Excavation
Excavation should be performed in accordance with Section 125 and 455 D of the current FDOT
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
All excavation and below grade construction activities should be in accordance with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The side slopes of all excavation greater
than four feet deep should be sloped at a maximum of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.5H: 1V) as
required by OSHA. Steeper slopes can be established by a “competent person” (as defined by
OSHA) and supported with a system designed by a registered Professional Engineer.
For temporary excavation support system, we recommend the following:
Saturated unit weight
120 pcf
Angle of soil friction
30 degrees
Cohesion
0
Surcharge load
250 psf
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 the data presented herein.
The scope of the exploration was intended to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions within the
influence of stormwater improvement. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this
NES
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
Page 11 of 11
July 14, 2015
report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated
and does not reflect any variations which may occur among these borings. If any variations
become evident during the course of this project, a re-evaluation of the recommendations
contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe the
characteristics of the conditions encountered. The applicability of the report should be reviewed
in the event of any significant changes occurring in the design, nature or location of the proposed
improvements.
The scope of services of this project, 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.
NES
APPENDIX A
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Table 2
Table 3A
Table 3B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Aerial Map
USGS Topographic Map
USDA/NRCS Soils Map
Potentiometric Surface Map
Boring Location Map
Summary of Lab Test Results
Soil Parameters for Proposed Wet
Detention Pond
— Soil Parameters for Proposed Dry
Pre - Treatment Pond
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SOUTH JEFF FUQUA BOULEVARD TRAVEL PLAZA & CELL LOT
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Boring
Location
No.
AB-1
South
Jeff
Fuqua
Blvd.
Travel
Plaza &
Cell
Lot
Latitude
Longitude
Sample
Moisture Organic
Depth Stratum Content Content
(feet)
(%)
(%)
Sieve Analysis
(Percent Passing)
Atterberg Limits
(%)
Soil
Classification
#10 #40 #60 #100 #200
Liquid Plasticity
Limit
Index
AASHTO
558589.6’
558888.0’
2
1
21
--
100
96
83
32
9
--
--
A-3
LS-2
1483975.6’
1484195.5’
5
1
22
--
--
--
--
--
8
--
--
A-3
AB-2
1484375.4’
558945.5’
3
2
21
--
100
97
86
34
17
--
--
A-2-4
2
17
--
100
98
90
53
35
--
--
A-2-4
AB-3
1484281.0’
558548.5’
3
AB-4
1484548.1’
558634.5’
2
2
7
--
100
96
85
41
22
--
--
A-2-4
5
2
22
--
100
97
88
44
31
--
--
A-2-4
SPT-1
1484609.6’
558920.5’
10
2
24
--
100
96
85
31
14
--
--
A-2-4
558922.7’
7
2
22
--
100
96
83
32
11
--
--
A-2-4
558798.2’
4
2
20
--
--
--
--
--
33
24
6
A-2-4
14
3
22
--
100
99
95
70
20
--
--
A-2-6
15
3
20
--
100
96
84
51
25
27
10
A-2-6
SPT-2
1484485.9’
SPT-3
1483935.3’
SPT-2
1484485.9’
558922.7’
20
3
24
--
--
--
--
--
25
--
--
A-2-6
LS-2
1484195.5’
558888.0’
18
3
23
--
--
--
--
--
18
--
--
A-2-6
MP-11
1484607.8’
558386.8’
2
4
42
7
--
--
--
--
18
--
--
A-8
1.5
4
47
6
--
--
--
--
26
--
--
A-8
2.5
4
46
8
--
--
--
--
28
--
--
A-8
3
4
53
9
--
--
--
--
27
--
--
A-8
2
4
55
11
--
--
--
--
17
--
--
A-8
MP-32
1484549.4’
558337.6’
MP-36
1484557.3’
558401.9’
MP-56
1484501.7’
558406.2’
Kimely-Horn and Associates, Inc.
South Jeff Fuqua Boulevard Travel Plaza & Cell Lot
NES Project No. R15-011
July 14, 2015
TABLE 3A
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR PROPOSED WET DETENTION POND
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SOUTH AIRPORT TRAVEL PLAZA
NES PROJECT NO.: R15-011
Proposed Wet
Pond Borings
Average GSE a
(ft., NAVD-88)
Pond Bottom
Elevation
(ft., NAVD-88)
Approximate Average GWEb
(ft., NAVD-88)
Estimated SHGWEc
(ft., NAVD-88)
Estimated SLGWEd
(ft., NAVD-88)
SPT-1
SPT-2
82.6
66.0
78.6
80.1
77.1
TABLE 3B
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR PROPOSED DRY PRE-TREATMENT POND
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SOUTH AIRPORT TRAVEL PLAZA
NES PROJECT NO.: R15-011
Proposed
Average GSE a
Dry Pond
(ft., NAVD-88)
Borings
SPT-3
PT-1
80.0
a
Pond Bottom
Elevation
(ft., NAVD-88)
81
GSE = Ground Surface Elevation
c
SHGWE = Seasonal High Water Elevation
Approximate
Average GWEb
(ft., NAVD-88)
77.0
Estimated
SHGWEc
(ft., NAVD-88)
78.8
b
Estimated
SLGWEd
(ft., NAVD-88)
75.8
GWE = Groundwater Elevation
d
SLGWE = Seasonal Low Water Elevation
Horizontal
Base of
Permeability
Aquifer
Kh-value
(ft, NAVD-88)
(ft/day)
-5
--
Sample
Depth
5
2
%
Passing
No. 200
sieve
33
9
Fillable
Porosity
%
35
30
APPENDIX B
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
Sheet 3
— Report of SPT Borings
— Report of SPT and Auger Borings
— Report of Muck Probe