2026-4_WRTA-Bus_Annex_PROJECT_MANUAL.pdf

PROJECT MANUAL

WRTA – BUS ANNEX

604 Mahoning Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44502

Invitation to Bid (ITB) #2026-4

Western Reserve Transit Authority 604 Mahoning Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio 44502

Issued April 7, 2026

Architect Project No. 24-038

Bid Set No.______

Division 00 - Procurement and Contracting Documents Document 00 01 00 ITB 2026-4 WRTA – Bus Annex TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 1

DOCUMENT 00 01 00 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS GROUP

Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements

Procurement requirements by Owner under separate cover.

00 01 00 ........... Table of Contents 00 31 32 ........... Geotechnical Data 00 31 42 ........... Detailed Load Study Report 00 70 00 ........... Supplementary Conditions

SPECIFICATIONS GROUP

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS SUBGROUP

Division 01 – General Requirements

01 10 00 ........... Summary 01 22 00 ........... Unit Prices 01 23 00 ........... Alternates 01 25 00 ........... Substitution Procedures 01 25 00.50 ...... Substitution Request Form 01 26 00 ........... Contract Modification Procedures 01 29 00 ........... Payment Procedures 01 31 00 ........... Project Management and Coordination 01 32 00 ........... Construction Progress Documentation 01 33 00 ........... Submittal Procedures 01 40 00 ........... Quality Requirements 01 42 00 ........... References 01 50 00 ........... Temporary Facilities and Controls 01 60 00 ........... Product Requirements 01 73 00 ........... Execution 01 74 19 ........... Construction Waste Management and Disposal 01 77 00 ........... Closeout Procedures 01 78 23 ........... Operation and Maintenance Data 01 78 39 ........... Project Record Documents 01 79 00 ........... Demonstration and Training

FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SUBGROUP

Division 02 – Existing Conditions

02 41 00 ........... Demolition

Division 03 – Concrete

03 01 30 ........... Rehabilitation of Cast-In-Place Concrete 03 20 00 ........... Concrete Reinforcing 03 30 00 ........... Cast-In-Place Concrete 03 33 00 ........... Formed Concrete

TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 2

Division 04 – Masonry

04 05 13 ........... Masonry Mortaring and Grouting 04 05 19 ........... Masonry Anchorage and Reinforcement 04 20 10 ........... Unit Masonry Assemblies 04 21 00 ........... Clay Unit Masonry 04 22 00 ........... Concrete Unit Masonry

Division 05 – Metals

05 12 00 ........... Structural Steel Framing 05 21 00 ........... Steel Joist Framing 05 30 00 ........... Metal Decking 05 40 00 ........... Cold-Formed Metal Framing 05 50 00 ........... Metal Fabrications

Division 06 – Wood, Plastics, and Composites

06 10 00 ........... Rough Carpentry

Division 07 – Thermal and Moisture Protection

07 10 00 ........... Damp-Proofing and Waterproofing 07 21 00 ........... Thermal Insulation 07 22 00 ........... Roof and Deck Insulation 07 27 00 ........... Air / Vapor Barriers 07 42 43 ........... Aluminum Clad Wall Panels 07 53 00 ........... Elastomeric Membrane Roofing (EPDM) 07 60 00 ........... Flashing and Sheet Metal 07 70 00 ........... Roof and Wall Specialties 07 92 00 ........... Joint Sealants

Division 08 – Openings

08 11 00 ........... Metal Doors and Frames 08 36 13 ........... Sectional Overhead Doors 08 41 00 ........... Entrances and Storefronts 08 80 00 ........... Glazing

Division 09 – Finishes

09 90 00 ........... Painting and Coating

Division 10 – Specialties

10 00 00 ........... Specialties

FACILITY SERVICES SUBGROUP

Division 22 – Plumbing (Refer to Drawings for Specifications)

Division 23 – Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (Refer to Drawings for Specifications)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 3

Division 26 – Electrical

26 01 01 ........... General Requirements 26 01 02 ........... Coordination Between Trades 26 01 03 ........... Temporary Electrical Service 26 01 06 ........... Scope of Work 26 01 07 ........... Electrical Tests, Adjustments and Inspection 26 05 13 ........... Medium Voltage Cable 26 05 19 ........... Low Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 26 05 26 ........... Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 26 05 27 ........... Grounding and Bonding for Medium-Voltage Service Equipment 26 05 29 ........... Hangers and Supports for Electrical Systems 26 05 33 ........... Raceways and Boxes for Electrical Systems 26 08 13 ........... Potential Instrument Transformers 26 08 26 ........... Utility Substation Relays 26 09 23 ........... Lighting Control Devices 26 09 26 ........... Lighting Control Panelboards 26 12 19 ........... Medium Voltage Transformers 26 13 16 ........... Medium Voltage Switchgear 26 13 19 ........... Medium Voltage Vacuum Circuit Breakers 26 18 16 ........... Fuses - Medium Voltage 26 22 13 ........... Dry Type Distribution Transformers 26 24 13 ........... Switchboards 26 24 16 ........... Lighting and Appliance Panelboards 26 24 17 ........... Distribution Panelboards 26 27 26 ........... Wiring Devices 26 28 13 ........... Fuses – Low Voltage 26 28 16 ........... Safety Switches 26 29 16 ........... Motor Connections and Controllers 26 32 13 ........... DC Control Power System for Medium-Voltage Protection and Tripping 26 43 13 ........... Surge Arresters and Suppressors 26 51 00 ........... LED Luminaires 26 56 00 ........... Exterior Lighting

Division 28 – Electronic Safety and Security

28 00 05 ........... Scope of Work 28 05 27 ........... Hangers and Supports for Electronic Safety and Security 28 05 28 ........... Raceways and Boxes for Electronic Safety and Security 28 31 00 ........... Fire Detection and Alarm

SITE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBGROUP

Division 31 – Earthwork

31 10 00 ........... Site Clearing 31 20 00 ........... Earth Moving

Division 32 – Exterior Improvements

32 13 13 ........... Concrete Paving 32 13 73 ........... Concrete Paving Joint Sealants 32 31 13 ........... Chain Link Fences and Gates

TABLE OF CONTENTS 00 01 00 - 4

Division 33 – Utilities

33 05 00 ........... Common Work Results for Utilities 33 10 00 ........... Facility Water Distribution Piping 33 30 00 ........... Facility Sanitary Sewers 33 41 00 ........... Storm Utility Drainage Piping 33 46 00 ........... Subdrainage

END OF DOCUMENT 00 01 00

“This electronic communication and its contents may contain confidential information which is the exclusive property of Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. The recipient(s) assumes all liability arising from any alteration, misuse or unauthorized distribution. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.”

Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report

Western Reserve Transit Authority (WRTA) Facility Improvements Mahoning Avenue

Youngstown, Ohio 44502

Prepared for:

Olsavsky Jaminet Architects, Inc.

April 22, 2025

GCI PROJECT #25-G-29966

April 22, 2025

Ms. Tracie Kaglic, AIA, LEED AP e-mail: tkaglic@olsjam.com Olsavsky Jaminet Architects, Inc.

114 East Front Street, Suite 200 Youngstown, Ohio 44503

Reference: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report WRTA Facility Improvements Mahoning Avenue – Youngstown, Ohio 44502 GCI Project No. 25-G-29966

Dear Ms. Kaglic:

As authorized, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GCI) performed a subsurface exploration and prepared this geotechnical engineering report for the above referenced project. In summary, existing fill soils were encountered in every boring extending to depths ranging between 2 and 9 feet below existing grades. The existing fill soils were generally predominated by silt and sand-based soils and contained varying amounts gravel, ashes, slag, and rock, brick, and concrete fragments. Traces of wood, glass, and organic materials were observed in some of the borings. Standard Penetration testing within the existing fill soils was erratic.

Below the existing fill soils, the borings encountered natural alluvial sand and silt-based soils. In several borings, the upper level alluvial soils were noted to be very loose.

Water seepage, consistently encountered at a similar elevation, was observed in the (15) borings that extended below the 15-foot depth. Based on the soil composition, the site’s proximity to the Mahoning River, and water elevations of the river at the time of drilling, GCI feels that a water table condition exists around elevation ±825 feet. No bedrock was encountered in the borings (maximum drilled depth 25 feet).

Based on the presence of existing fill soils, potentially very loose upper level natural soils, and the time since the construction of the existing buildings, it is the opinion of GCI that supporting the building addition on conventional shallow spread footings poses a significant risk of differential settlement between the existing building and the new additions.

As such, GCI provides (3) foundation options:

1. Extend foundations through existing fill soils and very loose upper level natural soils.

2. Support the building additions and canopy structures on drilled shafts (caissons).

3. Modify existing fill soils and very loose upper level natural soils in-place using rammed aggregate piers.

Provided the site is properly prepared, we feel the existing fill soils will not impact a typical slab-on-grade floor slab. Other geotechnical issues that will affect project development are site preparation, subgrade stability, and new construction in close proximity to existing structural elements. We discuss these and other geotechnical considerations in more detail in the report.

After you have reviewed the report, feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services for this project and hope to continue providing our services through construction.

Respectfully submitted, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.

Tim Petrilla, E.I. Joseph D. Stafford, P.E.

Project Manager In-House Reviewer

Distribution: Ms. Tracie Kaglic @ Olsavsky Jaminet Architects – pdf via e-mail Mr. Kurt O. Seidler @ Seidler Engineering – pdf via e-mail GCI File: 25-G-29966

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

LABORATORY TESTING

ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

FOUNDATIONS

FLOOR SLABS

RETAINING WALLS

SEISMIC FACTOR

EXCAVATIONS & GROUNDWATER

PAVEMENTS

SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND TESTING

FINAL

APPENDIX FOLLOWING PAGE NUMBER

General Notes for Soil Sampling and Classifications General Site Location & Boring Location Plan Summary of Encountered Subsurface Conditions (2 sheets) Test Boring Logs (25 logs) Laboratory Test Results

INTRODUCTION

As requested by Mr. Kurt Seidler, PE of Seidler Engineering (SE) and authorized by Ms.

Tracie Kaglic, AIA of Olsavsky Jaminet Architects, Inc. (OJA), Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GCI) has performed a subsurface exploration and prepared this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Western Reserve Transit Authority (WRTA) facility improvements to the existing WRTA facility located at 604 Mahoning Avenue in

Youngstown, Ohio. Prior to drilling, SE provided us with a site plan showing the proposed facility improvements and requested boring locations.

Our study consisted of twenty-five (25) standard penetration test borings. GCI was scheduled to perform thirty (30) borings; however, due to conflicts with existing utilities and sloping terrain, (5) borings had to be eliminated. GCI field located the borings using the provided site plan in conjunction with existing site landmarks; locations should be considered approximate.

Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained using GPS/GIS methods

(RX Probe utilizing Emlid Flow equipment and software). GCI recommends that elevations referred to in this report be considered approximate and used for reference only. We attach a sketch showing the approximate boring locations and copies of the boring logs in the appendix of this report.

The intent of this study was to evaluate subsurface conditions and offer geotechnical recommendations relative to earthwork, foundations, slabs, and pavements for the proposed facility improvements. We issue this report prior to the receipt of final site layout and grading plans. GCI should review these plans when available, and provide additional recommendations and borings, if necessary.

We prepared this report for the exclusive use of Olsavsky Jaminet Architects, Inc. and their consultants for specific application to the above referenced project in Youngstown, Ohio in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices.

We make no warranty, expressed or implied.

SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The existing WRTA facility is located at 604 Mahoning Avenue in Youngstown, Ohio. The general site location is shown on the Boring Location & Site Location Map included in the

Appendix of this report. The aerial photograph below shows existing site features and the approximate building addition locations.

Aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth©, dated 4/2023

The proposed improvements will likely be implemented in phases. Based on the information provided by the client, GCI understands that the following major improvements are planned.

New ±24,000 square foot parking canopy, with solar panels, over the existing parking area on the east side of the property.

New 7,890 square foot, single-story Bus Annex Expansion to the east side of the existing Bus Annex. The roof of the addition will eventually support solar panels.

Alternatively, the existing Bus Annex may be demolished and replaced with a larger building.

(2) New roof extensions to the existing single-story Bus Barn/Parking Garage. The west addition will measure approximately ±7,700 square feet and the east addition will measure approximately ±7,750 square feet. The roof extensions will eventually support solar panels.

New ±5,790 square foot, two-story Administration/Maintenance Building Expansion to the west side of the existing Administration/Maintenance Building.

New ±66,000 square foot Pavement/Parking Area on the west end of site. Retaining walls will likely be required to support portions of the abandoned embankment associated with the partially removed, former railroad embankment. It is not yet known if the new pavement area will be a rigid or flexible pavement.

Based on the provided project information and review of existing conditions, GCI anticipates that the new building construction(s) will be primarily steel-framed with isolated load bearing masonry infill, as needed. Additionally, we anticipate that vehicle storage and maintenance areas will utilize heavy duty floor slabs, while light/standard duty floor slab areas will utilize a standard 4-inch floor slab.

Topographically, the overall project site is relatively flat with grades at our boring locations ranging between ±839 and ±846 feet. Existing grades are most varied on the presently undeveloped west end of the site, where new parking is proposed. Independently, grades at the individual locations are generally flatter than the overall site extents. Based on this, GCI anticipates that minimal grading (generally less than 1 foot) will be required in the individual building addition areas to achieve a level building pad. Depending on proposed grades, more extensive grading will likely be required in the proposed new parking area on the west end of the site.

PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT

The project site has been previously developed. Review of historic mapping indicates that residential and commercial development at the overall site pre-dates 1850. Additionally, portions of the site have been subdivided by roads and previous rail lines. Most recently, the east end of the site (current pavement area) contained a two-story commercial building. Aerial imaging indicates that structure was removed in ±2008.

Existing fill soils were encountered in each boring, extending to depths ranging between 2 and 9 feet below existing grades. While no abandoned building remnants or demolition debris were encountered in the borings, based on the site’s location and previous development history, abandoned building remnants including demolition debris could be encountered during the construction phase.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

GCI mobilized a truck-mounted, rotary drill rig (GeoProbe 3100GT with automatic sampling hammer) to the site on March 17, 18, and 19, 2025. We drilled twenty-five (25) standard penetration test borings at the approximate requested locations. The borings extended to depths ranging between 4.5 and 25 feet below existing grades.

GCI was scheduled to perform thirty (30) borings; however, due to conflicts with existing utilities and sloping terrain, (5) borings had to be eliminated. The table below summarizes the boring locations, depths, and ground surface elevations at each boring location:

Boring Number

Boring Coordinates Surface Elevation

(ft.)1

Boring Depth

(ft.)

Remarks

Easting1 Northing1

B-1 - - - - Boring eliminated due to terrain

B-1/3 2475040.19 528649.26 841.3 10 Replaced B-1 and B-3

B-2 2475114.92 528651.56 841.2 5

B-3 - - - - Boring eliminated due to terrain

B-4 2475009.51 528437.09 844.5 5.5

B-5 2475014.80 528382.75 846.1 25

B-6 2475134.58 528383.75 843.1 5.5

B-7 2475121.56 528318.36 845.5 10

B-8 - - - - Boring eliminated due to utility conflict

B-8/9 2475255.51 528399.51 841.4 20 Replaced B-8 and B-9

B-9 - - - - Boring eliminated due to utility conflict

B-10 - - - - Boring eliminated due to terrain

B-11 2475328.80 528305.36 841.7 10

B-12 2475146.88 528598.80 841.1 24.4

B-13 2475129.56 528443.91 842.0 19.5

B-14 2475392.03 528512.72 840.8 25 Petroleum odor at 13.5 feet

B-15 2475397.92 528350.10 840.5 25

B-16 - - - - Boring eliminated due to utility conflict

B-17 2475549.02 528342.42 840.1 15

B-18 - - - - Boring eliminated due to utility conflict

B-19 2475626.57 528346.25 839.8 15

B-20 2475639.18 528268.59 839.7 25

B-21 2475701.86 528499.92 839.9 23.9 Petroleum odor at 13.5 feet

B-22 2475705.55 528348.94 840.1 23.1

B-23 2475790.33 528440.23 840.4 10

B-24 2475790.13 528377.56 840.2 10

B-25 2475790.50 528295.50 840.1 20

B-26 2475845.52 528437.02 839.8 20

B-27 2475857.52 528377.59 839.4 5

B-28 2475856.36 528295.37 839.2 4.5

B-29 2475949.88 528369.58 840.7 15 Petroleum odor at 13.5 feet

B-30 2475942.91 528296.98 839.8 20 Petroleum odor at 13.5 feet

1. Obtained using Emlid Reach RX Probe equipment and software.

We have included the boring logs, a copy of the Boring Location Plan, and a summary table of encountered subsurface conditions in the appendix of this report. We summarize the subsurface findings in the sections below. Refer to the individual boring logs for more detailed subsurface information at specific boring locations.

Existing Pavement

We encountered existing concrete pavement in (19) of the (24) borings, drilled within the perimeter site fence. The existing concrete thickness of the pavement section at the boring locations ranged between 6.5 and 9.5 inches thick (average 8.3 inches) and was underlain by aggregate base ranging between 3 and 18 inches in thickness (average 7.0 inches). The aggregate base in several of the borings was slag-based or noted to contain slag.

Boring B-20 was drilled outside the perimeter fence and encountered 3 inches of asphalt over 5 inches of concrete, underlain by 4 inches of slag-based aggregate.

Existing Fill Soils

Existing fill soils were encountered in all (25) borings. The existing fill soils extended to depths ranging between 2 and 9 feet below existing grades. In general, there was much less existing fill depth variation within the individual improvement areas. Additionally, the existing fill layer was generally deeper on the east side of the overall project site. The table on the next page summarizes the average fill depth at the proposed improvement locations.

Improvement Location Average Fill Depth (ft.)

Average Fill Elevation (ft.)

Proposed Parking Canopy 6.3 833.6

Bus Annex Expansion 3.3 836.5

Bus Barn 4.0 835.1

Administration/Maintenance Building 3.8 837.6

West Pavement Expansion 3.4 839.9

The existing fill soils encountered in the borings were generally predominated by silty sand containing varying amounts of gravel, ashes, slag, and rock, brick, and concrete fragments. Traces of wood, glass, and organic materials were observed in some of the borings. Standard Penetration testing within the existing fill layer was erratic, with N-values ranging from weight of hammer (i.e. no split-spoon resistance) to as high as 50 blows for only 3-inches of penetration. We generally described the retrieved soil samples from the existing fill layer as moist and very moist.

Borings B-4, B-27, and B-28 terminated within the existing fill layer at depths of 5.5, 5.0, and 4.5 feet, respectively below existing grades.

Natural Soils

Below the existing fill soils outlined above, the borings encountered natural alluvial soils.

The alluvial soils encountered in the borings were generally predominated by Silt with

Sand (ML)*, Sandy Silt (ML)*, Silty Sand (SM)*, Silty Sand with Gravel and Rock

Fragments (SM)*.

Standard Penetration testing within the silty sand and silt-based alluvial soils, generally indicated them to be very loose (N-value less than 5) to loose in cohesionless density.

Standard Penetration testing in the more well-graded, silty sand with gravel and rock fragment deposits, generally indicated them to be medium dense to dense in cohesionless density. The table below summarizes the average depth to stable1 natural soils at the proposed individual improvement locations

Improvement Location

Average Depth to

Stable Natural Soils (ft.)1

Average Elevation to

Stable Natural Soils (ft.)1

Proposed Parking Canopy 10.4 829.7

Bus Annex Expansion 8.4 831.7

Bus Barn 8.6 831.6

Administration/Maintenance Building 7.8 833.7

West Pavement Expansion 5.5 837.6

We generally describe the retrieved soil samples from the alluvial deposits as moist, becoming very moist near zones of water seepage. Samples retrieved from below seepage zones were generally noted to be wet. Apart from the (3) borings (B-4, B-27, and B-28) noted in the previous section, the remaining borings terminated within the alluvial deposits at depths ranging between 5 and 25 feet below existing grades.

* Classification under the ASTM/Unified Soil Classification System

1. Stable natural alluvial soils are defined as "Medium Dense" cohesionless soils with a N60 value of 10 or greater.

Bedrock

Bedrock was not encountered in the borings (maximum drilled depth 25 feet). The ODNR

Water Resources Map for Mahoning County indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone bedrock at elevations ranging between 790 and 800 feet (±40 to 50 feet below existing site grades).

Groundwater

We encountered groundwater seepage in the borings that extended more than 15 feet below existing grades (15 of the 25 borings). By the completion of the drilling process, only B-21 had a measurable water level, which was recorded at a depth of 10 feet below existing grade.

The remaining borings that encountered water seepage experienced cave-in following removal of the drilling equipment. In general, the cave-in occurred within very loose silt-based alluvial deposits at or near the interface with the existing fill soils. The table below summarizes water seepage and cave-in observations. Refer to the individual boring logs for more detailed subsurface information at specific boring locations.

Boring Number

Water Seepage Water Level at

Completion Cave-in Level at

Completion

Depth (ft.)

Elevation (ft.)

Depth (ft.)

Elevation (ft.)

Depth (ft.)

Elevation (ft.)

B-5 17 829.1 - - 6 840.1 B-8/9 15 826.4 - - 5.5 835.9 B-12 14 827.1 - - 5 836.1 B-13 14 827.5 - - 3.5 838.5 B-14 14 826.8 - - 13 827.8 B-15 14 826.5 - - 5 835.5 B-17 14 826.1 - - 3 837.1 B-19 14 825.8 - - 4.5 835.3 B-20 14 825.7 - - 7 832.7 B-21 14 825.9 10 829.9 - - B-22 14 826.1 - - 10 830.1 B-25 14 826.1 - - 8.5 831.6 B-26 14 825.8 - - 4 835.8 B-29 14 826.7 - - 4.5 836.2 B-30 14.5 825.3 - - 7 832.8

At the time of drilling, the USGS Mahoning River West Avenue Monitoring Station, located approximately ±2000 feet upstream from the project location, noted an average Mahoning

River elevation of about ±826 feet. Based on this, natural soils moisture testing, and the water seepage elevations observed in the borings (average elevation 825.6 feet), GCI feels that a natural ground water table exists within the granular alluvial soils near or slightly above the Mahoning River water elevation.

Note that soil moisture conditions and groundwater observations fluctuate due to changes in precipitation, climate, stabilization time and other factors that may differ from the time the measurements were made. Additionally, it is not uncommon to encounter groundwater seepage at fill/natural soil interfaces.

LABORATORY TESTING

Natural moisture content, grain size analysis, and in-situ unit weight calculations were performed on select samples obtained from the borings. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to provide information to refine our soil classifications and to evaluate the characteristics of the subsurface strata. Results of the lab testing are incorporated in the soil descriptions above and in the attached boring logs. The results of the laboratory testing are included in the appendix and summarized in the sections below.

Natural Moisture Testing

A total of (70) moisture content tests were completed on retrieved soil samples. The results of the natural moisture content testing are summarized in the (2) tables on the next page.

Summary of Natural Moisture Contents - Table 1 of 2

Boring Sample

B-1/3 B-2 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8/9 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15

0 to 1.5 feet - - 15.8 26.7 19.5 18.1 - - - - - -

1.0 to 3.0 feet 13.1 13.1 - - - - 12.6 6.9 - - - -

2.0 to 3.5 feet - - 11.6 - 23.6 8.9 - - - 8.8 - -

3.0 to 5.0 feet 13.9 9.7 - - - - - 21.2 13.5 - 19.4 -

4.0 to 5.5 feet - - 16.9 9.1 8.6 8.9 - - - 16.3 - -

8.5 to 10.0 feet 7.8 - - - - - 9.6 9.2 9.3 9.2 10.2 14.2

13.5 to 15.0 feet - - - - - - - - 13.7 - 15.8 25.7

18.5 to 20.0 feet - - - 26.8 - - 13.3 - - - - 19.1

23.5 to 25.0 feet - - - - - - - - - - - 8.1

Summary of Natural Moisture Contents - Table 2 of 2

Boring Sample

B-17 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22 B-23 B-24 B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28 B-29 B-30

1.0 to 3.0 feet - 21.9 13.6 - - 15.2 - 14.6 - 11.7 14.5 - -

2.0 to 3.5 feet - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3.0 to 5.0 feet 12.2 9.3 10.7 16.6 30.5 - 22.0 - 16.9 10.6 12.0 14.0 14.5

4.0 to 5.5 feet - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8.5 to 10.0 feet 10.5 10.0 8.8 10.9 9.4 14.2 10.2 9.7 15.2 - - 15.8 -

13.5 to 15.0 feet 14.6 14.7 14.5 15.9 17.0 - - - 16.6 - - - 9.9

18.5 to 20.0 feet - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Index Testing

GCI performed grain size analysis testing, with hydrometer, on five (5) samples obtained from the borings. The test results are contained in the appendix and summarized in the table below.

Boring Number

Sample Depth (ft.)

Moisture Content

Grain Size Distribution Remarks ‐

USCS/ASTM Soil Classification % Gravel

% Sand % Silt &

Clay

B-1/3 8.5 – 10.0 7.8 35.9 47.6 16.5 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

B-7 4.0 – 5.5 8.9 37.0 47.6 15.4 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

B-15 13.5 – 15.0 25.7 0 11.1 88.9 Silt (ML)

B-20 3.0 – 5.0 10.7 18.5 51.1 30.4 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

B-29 8.5 – 10.0 15.8 0 59.2 40.8 Silty Sand (SM)

In-situ Unit Weight Determinations

We performed (12) in-situ, moist unit weight determinations on minimally disturbed soil samples obtain from the borings. The results of the unit weight determinations are summarized in the table below.

Boring Number

Sample Depth (ft.)

Moisture Content

In-situ Moist Unit Weight, γw

(pcf)

Remarks/Soil Classification

B-2 1.0 - 3.0 13.1 118.2 Silty Sand (SM) - fill and natural B-8/9 8.5 - 10.0 9.6 147.7 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

B-12 3.0 - 5.0 13.5 131.2 Silty Sand (SM)

B-13 4.0 - 5.5 16.3 140.6 Silt with Sand (ML)

B-15 23.5 - 25.0 8.1 146.6 Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

B-19 1.0 - 3.0 21.9 136.3 Sandy Silt/Silty Sand Fill

B-20 1.0 - 3.0 13.6 126.8 Sandy Silt/Silty Sand Fill

B-21 3.0 - 5.0 16.6 131.5 Sandy Silt/Silty Sand Fill

B-24 3.0 - 5.0 22.0 122.9 Sandy Silt Fill

B-25 1.0 - 3.0 14.6 130.7 Silty Sand Fill

B-26 8.5 - 10.0 15.2 127.7 Silty Sand (SM)

B-30 3.0 - 5.0 14.5 127.5 Silty Sand Fill

ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

The borings encountered existing fill soils extending to depths ranging between 2 and 9 feet below existing grades. The existing fill soils were generally predominated by silt and sand-based soils and contained varying amounts gravel, ashes, slag, and rock, brick, and concrete fragments. Traces of wood, glass, and organic materials were observed in some of the borings. Standard Penetration testing within the existing fill soils was erratic.

In about half of the borings, a very loose seam of sand or silt-based alluvial soil was observed just below the existing fill/natural soil interface. Cave-in of the borehole, immediately following removal of the drilling equipment, occurred in (14) of the (25) borings near this interface, where very loose upper level alluvial soils were encountered.

The facilities’ existing structures/building are relatively old (50 plus years), and while we have no specific information regarding their foundations, we suspect they are supported on conventional, shallow spread footings. Additionally, due to the age of buildings and based on the fill depths encountered in our borings, we suspect that foundations for the existing structures/buildings are founded in fill soils.

While GCI is unaware of any overt settlement or performance issues associated with the existing buildings, it is the opinion of GCI that supporting new building additions on conventional shallow spread footings within existing fill soils poses a significant risk of differential settlement between the existing buildings and the new additions.

Provided the site is properly prepared, and subsurface conditions are accounted for during the design phase, it is GCI’s opinion that the site geotechnical conditions are suitable for the proposed building additions, with a few considerations. Due to existing fill soils, GCI recommends the following options regarding foundations:

1. Extend foundations through existing fill soils and very loose upper level natural soils.

2. Support the building additions and canopy structures on drilled shafts (caissons).

3. Modify existing fill soils and very loose upper level soils in-place using rammed aggregate piers. Following modification with rammed aggregate piers, the proposed building additions or canopy structure can be supported using a conventional shallow foundation system.

We discuss these foundation options and other geotechnical considerations in more detail in the following sections.

Foundation Option 1 - Extend foundation through existing fill soils

Extending (undercutting) foundation excavations so that they extend through the existing fill soils and potentially very loose upper level alluvial soils may be feasible. However, due to the depth to stable natural soils (±8 to 10 feet), the generally granular consistency of the existing fill and upper level loose natural soils, and the likelihood of excavation instability/sidewall collapse in these soils, extending conventional foundations through unsuitable soils may not be practical or cost-effective.

Extending/undercutting conventional shallow foundation excavations through unsuitable soils will likely result in sizable disruptions at the surface to accommodate safety requirements (i.e. benching requirements) for excavations that extend 8 to 10 feet below grade. Additionally, where new foundations are located in close proximity to existing foundations, shoring and/or braced excavations will likely be required to prevent undermining or loss of support for existing structural elements.

If this option is selected, we recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity not to exceed 3,000 pounds per square foot (PSF), where foundations are bearing in suitable, natural soils. We recommend that interior foundations similarly be extended to permit bearing in suitable natural soils.

Regardless of the calculated values, we recommend minimum dimensions of 24 inches wide for strip footings and 48 inches square for isolated column pads to eliminate a potential punching effect. All exterior footings should extend to a minimum depth of 42 inches (frost code depth) or to acceptable bearing (as outlined above), whichever is deepest. Provided the foundation bearing surfaces are prepared as recommended, expected industry standard settlements of 1-inch for total settlement and ½-inch differential settlement are appropriate. GCI should be retained to observe foundation bearing subgrades following undercuts.

Foundation Option 2 - Drilled Shafts

Supporting the building additions and canopy structures using drilled shafts (caissons) may be more practical than extending conventional shallow foundations through unsuitable soils. Building columns, exterior walls, load-bearing interior walls, and canopy supports can be supported on properly designed caps and/or grade beams transferring loads to the drilled shafts. Interior, lightly loaded partition walls can be supported on thickened slabs. See the Floor Slab section of this report for additional information on thickened slabs. GCI offers the following recommendations with regards to the drilled shaft foundations:

We recommend using straight shaft drilled piers. Drilled piers should be designed in accordance with ACI 336.3 - Design and Construction of Drilled Piers.

Drilled shafts, particularly for canopy supports, may experience horizontal movement caused by lateral loads and overturning moments. Lateral load analysis performed using LPILE or other comparable lateral load analysis software should use the soil parameters below.

Drilled Shaft Elevation (ft.)

Moist Unit Weight, γw

(pcf)

Submerged Unit

Weight, γsub (pcf)

Friction Angle, Φ (degrees)

Undrained Shear

Strength (psf)1

Soil Modulus, k (pci)

Soil Strain (E50 for Clays)1

Above 835 feet 130 ‐ 24 ‐ 75 ‐

825 to 835 feet 135 72.6 30 ‐ 200 ‐

Below 825 feet 145 82.6 36 ‐ 300 ‐

1. Site soils (natural and fill) are granular and therefore should be considered cohesionless.

Drilled piers should be installed in accordance with ACI 336.1 - Specifications for the Construction of Drilled Piers.

At a minimum, drilled shafts should extend at least one shaft diameter into medium dense alluvial soils at depths ranging between 10 and 20 feet below existing grades.

For simplicity in design and construction, we suggest extending all drilled shafts to elevation 825 feet (approximately 15 feet below existing grades).

Note: Extending the drilled shafts deeper into dense and very dense alluvial deposits, below elevation ±820 feet, would likely result in fewer drilled shafts required. However, efficiency costs may be offset due to shaft sidewall/subgrade instability, dewatering, and casing and concrete placement requirements.

Drilled piers should be designed for the following net allowable end bearing pressure, based on the drilled shaft tip elevation:

Drilled Shaft Tip Elevation (ft.)

Net Allowable End Bearing Pressure (psf)

820 to 828 feet 5,000

Below 820 feet 15,000

Regardless of calculated values, we recommend that drilled piers have diameters of at least 24 inches to allow for proper clean out and verification of suitable bearing conditions.

We recommend a minimum concrete compressive strength (f’c) of 4,500 psi for drilled shafts.

Temporary steel casing may be required during pier construction, particularly in very loose granular soils and below the water table. Where temporary casings are used, an adequate concrete head must be maintained in the casings during removal to protect shafts from cave-in and necking.

We anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during drilling of the shafts at elevations below ±825 feet. We anticipate that dewatering will be difficult for shafts extending well below ±825 feet. If groundwater is encountered, it should be addressed during drilled shaft construction in accordance with ACI 336.1 - Specifications for the Construction of Drilled Piers.

We recommend that GCI be retained to observe drilled shaft construction. The purpose of this work is to assess that the intent of our recommendations is being followed and to make timely changes to our recommendations (as needed) in the event site conditions vary from those encountered in the borings.

Foundation Option 3 - Rammed Aggregate Piers

GCI considers modifying existing fill soils and potentially very loose upper level alluvial soils using rammed aggregate piers (RAPs), a possible cost-effective alternative to drilled shafts for this project. Following modification with rammed aggregate piers, the proposed building additions or canopy supports can be supported using a conventional shallow foundation system.

RAPs improve bearing capacity and control settlement by densifying in-situ soil conditions.

This technique involves drilling auger holes through the unsuitable soils and ramming aggregate into the holes in 12 to 24 inch lifts up to the bearing elevation. Holes would be drilled in a grid pattern beneath foundations, and possibly slabs. Ramming both densifies the aggregate and forces the aggregate laterally into the sidewalls of the holes, resulting in improved bearing and settlement characteristics of existing fills soils and potentially very loose alluvial soils to support footings and/or floor slabs. RAP’s essentially create a stiffened mat beneath the building additions.

RAPs are typically a proprietary design and installed by a specialty contractor. The process requires a final foundation plan and close coordination between the RAP designer/installer, the building designer, and the site work contractor. Temporary casing, or other systems to address caving soils, may be needed to install RAP elements through loose soils or where groundwater seepage is encountered.

Once the RAPs are completed, shallow spread footings with slabs-on-grade can be used.

If properly designed and implemented, post-construction settlements expected within the improved zone should be 1-inch of total settlement and ½ inch or less of differential movement*. Spread footings could be designed based on an allowable bearing pressure of between 3,000 to 5,000 psf*, depending on the RAP spacing and degree of soil improvement provided by the RAP’s. When a foundation plan and loads are available, consult a RAP’s design-build consultant regarding the viability and design assistance for the proposed building.

* Note: Actual settlement criteria and allowable bearing pressures will need to be provided and verified by the RAP designer.

Site Preparation

The proposed addition and canopy areas are primarily concrete pavement parking and drive areas. For successful completion and unobstructed construction of the new additions and canopy, we recommend that all existing pavements be properly removed.

Additionally, existing utilities that will interfere with proposed construction should be removed or rerouted to permit unobstructed construction of the new addition. Existing grades are most varied on the presently undeveloped west end of the site, where new parking is proposed. Depending on proposed grades, more extensive grading will likely be required in the proposed new parking area on the west side of the site.

Following removal of these items, controlled fill or backfill (if required) can be placed over suitable subgrades to achieve proposed grades, after the stability of the underlying subgrades has been verified. Based on existing grades and the scope of the project, we do not anticipate that any significant controlled fill will be required in the building addition areas. Existing grades are most varied on the presently undeveloped west end of the site, where new parking is proposed. Depending on proposed grades, more extensive grading will likely be required in the proposed new parking area on the west side of the site.

We noted slag within the pavement base layers and within some of the existing fill soils. It was formerly common practice to utilize slag-based aggregates as sub-base and fill materials in this region. Therefore, it may be possible that significant amounts of slag-based aggregates are encountered during demolition and site preparation. If slag-based aggregates are encountered within construction areas, they should be removed. We do not recommend reusing slag-based materials as fill or sub-base materials (either below pavements or slabs), due to their swell/heave potential.

Existing slag materials may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis during construction. Where slag-based aggregates make up new slab subgrades, we recommend, as a minimum, removing/undercutting slag-based materials for a depth of 2 feet and replacing with inert, natural soils or aggregates. GCI recommends that the project carry contingency monies in the event that slag-based materials require remediation.

Subgrade Stability

Elevated moisture conditions in the near surface existing fill soils could present earthwork and construction difficulties with regard to subgrade stability and fill placement and compaction. The degree to which high moisture soils will affect the project will depend to some extent on the time of year construction is performed. In general terms, we would expect less of an impact if work is performed during traditionally drier times of the year

(i.e., late Spring thru early Fall).

We recommend that the site earthwork contractor proof-roll the soil subgrades using a fully-loaded, tandem-axle dump truck (or equivalent) after performing site stripping/pavement removal and prior to controlled fill placement or construction of slabs or pavements. The purpose of the proof-roll is to identify potential soft, yielding subgrade areas. Soft spots identified during the proof-roll should be stabilized prior to placing controlled fill to finished subgrade elevation.

Stabilization of soft or very moist subgrades by disking, aerating/drying, and re-compaction may be feasible during traditionally drier times of the year; however, conventional mechanical aeration methods used for drying wet soils (more than 3% above the Standard Proctor optimum moisture content) are typically not feasible in the late fall through early spring seasons.

During wet seasons, partial undercutting and replacing of wet soils with structural fill, drying with soil additives such as lime, or use of geosynthetics may be needed to create a stable subgrade before placing controlled fills. The use of soil additives such as lime and flyash or installation of geosynthetics should be reviewed by our office prior to use in the field.

Fill Placement and Compaction

Based on current site grades and the scope of the project, we anticipate that minimal controlled fills will be required to achieve desired grades in building addition and pavement areas. We anticipate deeper controlled fills may be required to backfill removed abandoned utilities or for removed foundations in the event that the existing Annex

Building is removed and replaced.

Non-organic, natural soils and relatively clean non-slag based existing fill soils can be used as controlled fill for the building pad, pavement areas, and for utility trench and abandoned foundation backfill. As previously stated, we do not recommend using slag-based materials as controlled fill or for pavement/slab sub-base materials.

Controlled fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick loose lifts and compacted to 98% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density, within ±2% of the optimum moisture content. Slab and pavement subgrades should be compacted to a flat, smooth, stable surface with a smooth drum compactor prior to placement of aggregate base materials. Moisture adjustment of the fill materials may be required, particularly if earthwork is performed in the early spring, late fall, or winter seasons.

FLOOR SLABS

GCI is of the opinion that provided existing fill soils are firm, stable and free of slag content, they can remain in place for floor slab support. See the Site Preparation section of this report for more information regarding slag-based materials below floor slabs.

A conventional concrete slab-on-grade is suitable for the proposed building additions, provided the subgrade is thoroughly proofrolled and any soft, yielding areas brought to a stable condition prior to slab construction or placement of aggregate base. Interior, lightly-loaded partition walls can be supported on thickened slabs, as required. We recommend that the thickened slabs below interior CMU partition walls be at least 4 times the width of the wall and thick enough to adequately contain top and bottom reinforcing steel.

In slab areas subject to bus parking, traffic, and/or maintenance, we recommend a minimum concrete slab thickness of 8 inches underlain by at least 6 inches of aggregate sub-base (crushed gravel or ODOT Item 304) to serve as a capillary cut-off and to provide a uniform, firm sub-base. In lightly loaded, non-vehicle traffic areas, the floor slab concrete thickness can be reduced to 4 inches underlain by 4 inches of aggregate sub-base.

If required for design purposes, heavy-duty floor slabs can be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) where the slab is constructed over at least 6 inches of compacted granular base. We suggest placing a vapor retarder below the slab in areas where moisture could cause problems with floor finishes.

RETAINING WALLS

Depending on the final design extents of the proposed parking area on the west end of the site, retaining walls may be required to support portions of the abandoned embankment associated with the partially removed, former railroad embankment.

Design retaining walls to resist lateral earth pressures per the table on the next page. If the wall is not allowed to move freely at the top (i.e. fixed conditions – restrained at both the top and bottom), design the walls using at-rest lateral earth pressures. Use active lateral earth pressures if the wall is allowed to rotate (not restrained at the top of wall). Most grade change retaining walls are considered unrestrained at the top and therefore designed using active lateral earth pressures. The design loading depends on the type of backfill material used and the boundary support conditions. Both retaining and below grade walls should also consider lateral earth pressures from surcharge load conditions.

Soil Type

Equivalent Active Equivalent At-Rest

Ka Fluid Pressure

(pcf) Ko Fluid Pressure (pcf)

Granular Material (Φ= 35°) 0.27 35 0.43 56

Existing Fill Soils – Sandy Silt/Silty Sand (Φ= 24°) 0.42 55 0.60 78

*The above values assume drained conditions behind the wall, an assumed backfill density of approximately 130 pounds per cubic foot and a horizontal surface behind the wall. Any lateral pressures from possible surcharge loads should also be included in the design.

We recommend that granular material (less than 25% passing the No. 200 sieve) be used for all wall backfills. GCI does not recommend using cohesive soils as wall backfill due to their poor drainage characteristics and potential for excessive lateral wall loads resulting from surface frost. The granular material should be placed at a 35° angle from the vertical to allow use of the lower values above. We recommend that drainage blankets be installed behind walls leading to daylight, in order to minimize the build-up of hydrostatic forces behind any retaining walls.

SEISMIC FACTOR

Existing fill soils were encountered in all (25) borings. The existing fill soils extended to depths ranging between 2 and 9 feet below existing grades. Standard Penetration testing within the existing fill layer was erratic, with N-values ranging from weight of hammer (i.e. no split-spoon resistance) to as high as 50 blows for only 3-inches of penetration.

Below the existing fill layer, the natural soil profile was predominated by medium dense, becoming dense with depth, alluvial soils. Bedrock was not encountered in the borings

(maximum drilled depth 25 feet). Review of the ODNR Water Resources Map for

Mahoning County indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone bedrock at elevations ranging between 790 and 800 feet (±40 to 50 feet below existing site grades).

Based on the borings and in accordance with the Ohio Building Code, we estimate the site has a Site Class D – stiff soil. We do not consider liquefaction to be an issue for this project.

EXCAVATIONS & GROUNDWATER

The site soils, natural or existing fill, can be excavated with conventional track-hoe equipment. Bedrock was not encountered in the borings (maximum drilled depth 25 feet).

Based on this and the scope of the project, we do not anticipate that rock will impact excavations or construction. All site excavations should comply with current OSHA regulations.

We encountered groundwater seepage in the borings that extended more than 15 feet below existing grades (15 of the 25 borings). Based on the soil composition, the site’s proximity to the Mahoning River, and water elevations of the river at the time of drilling, GCI feels that a water table condition exists around elevation ±825 feet. Based on this, GCI is of the opinion that excavations (including drilled shafts) that extend below elevation ±825 will encounter significant water and may be very difficult to dewater using conventional portable pump dewatering methods.

It is GCI’s opinion that groundwater will not significantly impact shallower construction (i.e.

above elevation ±825 feet). If water is encountered in shallow site excavations, the excavations should be dewatered to allow shallow foundation construction and utility trench backfilling in dry conditions. We expect groundwater seepage flows in shallow excavations can be handled with portable sump pumps and working mats of crushed stone, as needed. Contact GCI for additional recommendations if excessive groundwater conditions are encountered.

PAVEMENTS

Provided the site is properly prepared, conventional aggregate base and flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements can be used. Prior to pavement construction, the subgrade should be carefully proof-rolled, and stabilized as necessary. Properly compacted, we feel that the site soils would have a CBR value of at least 3.