A1_-_MACA_190350_Final_CD_-_Div_01_Project_Specifications-Sealed_(1).pdf

MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK

KENTUCKY

REHABILITATE AND UPDATE

THE FROZEN NIAGARA SHELTER

MACA

PMIS NO. 190350

DIVISION 01

PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

DENVER SERVICE CENTER (DSC)

FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SUBMISSION

24 AUGUST 2023

ARCHITECTURAL

MACA 190350 TOC - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Division Section Title

01 11 00 Summary Of Work 01 11 00 Appendix 1.9 Report of Geotechnical Exploration 01 11 00 Appendix 1.10 Existing Topo Survey 01 26 01 Contract Modification Procedures 01 27 00 Definition Of Contract Line Items 01 31 00 Project Management And Coordination 01 32 16 Construction Schedule 01 32 33 Photo Documentation 01 33 23 Submittal Procedures 01 33 23 Submittal Procedures List 01 35 13.22 Archeological Protection 01 35 23 Safety Requirements 01 40 00 Quality Requirements 01 42 00 Reference Standards 01 50 00 Temporary Facilities And Controls 01 57 19.12 Noise And Acoustics Management 01 57 23 Temporary Storm Water Pollution Prevention 01 67 00 Product Requirements 01 73 29 Cutting and Patching 01 73 40 Execution 01 74 19 Construction Waste Management And Disposal 01 74 19 Appendix A Project Waste Management Plan Worksheet 01 74 19 Appendix B Standard Solid Waste Conversions 01 77 00 Closeout Procedures 01 77 00 Closeout and Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Requirements Template 01 78 23 Operation And Maintenance Data 01 79 00 Demonstration And Training 01 81 13 Sustainable Design Requirements

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS

MACA 190350 01 11 00 - 1

SUMMARY OF WORK

SECTION 01 11 00

SUMMARY OF WORK

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 SUMMARY

A. Section includes the following:

1. Work Covered by Contract Documents

2. Contractor Use of Site

3. Public Use of Site

4. Occupancy Requirements for Buildings

5. Conduct of Operations

6. Work Restrictions

7. Special Construction Requirements

8. Soils Investigation Report

9. Additional Reports

1.2 WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

A. Project Location: Mammoth Cave National Park southernmost entrance to the Frozen Niagara Cave as shown.

B. The Work consists of:

1. Complete removal of the existing Frozen Niagara Shelter.

2. Site work and construction of a new shelter.

C. Project will be constructed under a single prime contract.

1.3 USE OF SITE

A. General: Contractor shall have limited use of site for construction operations. Limit use of premises to areas within the Construction limits indicated on drawings. Do not disturb portions of Project site beyond areas in which the Work is indicated.

B. Storage of Materials: Confine storage of materials to staging area shown on plans.

C. Preservation of Natural Features:

1. Prevent damage to natural surroundings. Restore damaged areas, repairing or replacing damaged trees and plants, at no additional expense to the Government.

2. Provide temporary barriers to protect existing trees and plants and root zones.

MACA 190350 01 11 00 - 2

3. Do not remove, injure, or destroy trees or other plants without prior approval. Consult with Contracting Officer (CO) and remove agreed-on roots and branches that interfere with construction.

4. Do not fasten ropes, cables, or guys to existing trees.

5. Carefully supervise excavating, grading, filling, and other construction operations near trees to prevent damage.

D. Driveways and Entrances: Keep driveways and entrances serving premises clear and available to Government employees, and emergency vehicles at all times. Do not use for parking or storage of materials.

1. Schedule deliveries to minimize use of driveways and entrances.

2. Schedule deliveries to minimize space and time requirements for storage of materials and equipment on-site.

E. Construction Camp: Establishment of a camp within park will not be permitted.

F. Hauling Restrictions: Comply with legal load restrictions in hauling of materials. Load restrictions on park roads are identical to state load restrictions with such additional regulations as may be imposed by the Park Superintendent. Information regarding rules and regulations for vehicular traffic on park roads may be obtained from the Office of the Park Superintendent. A special permit will not relieve Contractor of liability for damage which may result from moving of equipment.

G. Bridge Restrictions: Identify jurisdictions, load restrictions, permit requirements, time and calendar restrictions as outlined.

1.4 PUBLIC USE OF SITE

A. The road, park and cave access area will be open to the public during construction. Temporary vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided.

B. Contractor shall conduct his operations to ensure the least inconvenience to public. Road closures may be permitted, when required, upon specific approval of Contracting Officer for a maximum of a one hour increment.

1.5 OCCUPANCY REQUIRMENTS FOR BUILIDINGS

A. New Buildings

a. Contracting Officer will prepare a Beneficial Occupancy letter for the Work to be occupied before Government occupancy.

b. Obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from National Park Service (NPS) before Government occupancy.

c. On occupancy, Government will assume responsibility for maintenance and custodial service for occupied portions of building.

MACA 190350 01 11 00 - 3

1.6 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS

A. Contractor shall conduct his operations in conformance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior for the National Park Service, and applicable park rules and regulations prescribed by Park Superintendent.

B. Work on Saturdays, Sundays, Federal holidays or at night may not be performed unless stated in the Work Restrictions below or without prior consent from the Contracting Officer. Submit requests three business/calendar days in advance of the work to the Contracting Officer for approval.

C. No signs or advertisements (except those specified herein) shall be displayed on the construction site or within the park unless approved by the Contracting Officer.

1.7 WORK RESTRICTIONS

A. On-Site Work Hours: Work shall be generally performed during normal business working hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except when otherwise indicated.

1. Weekend Hours: Weekend work is not allowed unless approved by Contracting Officer at least 48 hours in advance.

B. Existing Utilities

1. Existing Utilities: not available for this site.

2. Contractor shall be responsible for providing their own utilities for the project.

C. Nonsmoking Building/Tobacco Use/Vaping: Smoking is not permitted within building or within 25 feet of entrances, operable windows, or outdoor air intakes.

1.8 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

A. See Section 01 31 00 "Project Management and Coordination" for requirements on using Project Website.

B. The Park requires access to the Frozen Niagara Road and no blocking of the roadways from construction activities near the Cave entrance.

1.9 SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT

A. The Report of Geotechnical Exploration, dated March 2023, prepared by American Engineers, Inc. (AEI) is, an appendix with this package.

B. In case of conflict between report and drawings or specifications, the drawings and specifications govern.

MACA 190350 01 11 00 - 4

1.10 ADDITIONAL REPORTS

A. The report EXISTING TOPO dated March 21, 2023 prepared by American Engineers, Inc. (AEI) is an appendix with this package.

B. In case of conflict between report and drawings or specifications, drawings and specifications govern.

PART 2 - PRODUCTS (Not Used)

PART 3 - EXECUTION (Not Used)

END OF SECTION 01 11 00

MAMMOTH CAVE, KY

MARCH 2023

MACA-REHABILITATE FROZEN NIAGARA SHELTER

March 30, 2023

Ms. Dedia Hart, AIA Sr. Architect, LEED AP BD+C AES Group, Inc.

11031 South Pikes Peak Drive Parker, CO 80138

Re: Report of Geotechnical Exploration

MACA – Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter Mammoth Cave, Kentucky AEI Project No. 223-052

Dear Ms. Hart:

American Engineers, Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical report that details the results of our geotechnical exploration performed at the above referenced site.

The attached report describes the site and subsurface conditions and also details our recommendations for the proposed project. The Appendices to the report contains a drawing with a boring layout, typed boring logs and the results of laboratory testing.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and hope to provide further support on this and other projects in the future. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Respectfully, AMERICAN ENGINEERS, INC.

Peyton Payne Graduate Engineer

Jacob Cowan, PE Geotechnical Engineer

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

MACA-REHABILITATE FROZEN NIAGARA SHELTER

MAMMOTH CAVE, KY

Table of Contents

1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY

3 SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED

4 RESULTS OF THE EXPLORATION

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

4.3 BEDROCK CONDITIONS

4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4.5 SEISMIC CONDITIONS

5 ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL SITE WORK

5.1.1 On-Site Soils

5.1.2 General Fill Requirements

5.1.3 Off-Site Soils

5.1.4 Topsoil Stripping

5.1.5 Subgrade Evaluation/Conditioning

5.1.6 Fill Placement

5.1.7 Soil Movement

5.1.8 Site Soil Practices

5.2 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

5.2.1 Recommended Bearing Capacity Values

5.2.2 Recommended Minimum Footing Dimensions

5.2.3 Footing Trenches

5.2.4 Grade Supported Floor Slab Recommendations

5.2.5 Potential Foundation Movement

5.3 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.3.1 Construction Monitoring/Testing

5.3.2 Earthwork Considerations

5.3.3 Limitations

Appendices

Appendix A – Boring Layout

Appendix B – Typed Boring Logs

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing Results

Appendix D – Typical Sinkhole Treatment Detail

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

MACA-REHABILITATE FROZEN NIAGARA SHELTER

MAMMOTH CAVE, KY

1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION

The site of the proposed rehabilitation is located at the existing Frozen Niagara Shelter at Mammoth Cave National Park in Mammoth Cave, Kentucky. At the time of the exploration, the site was covered in a growth of mixed grasses and trees. The topography can be described as relatively flat. A grading plan was not available at the time of the investigation.

2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY

Available geologic mapping (Geology of the Mammoth Cave Quadrangle, Kentucky, USGS, 1964) shows the site to be underlain by Upper Mississippian-Aged deposits of Ste.

Genevieve Limestone. The limestone is described as white to very light gray in color, very fine to coarse grained, thin to very thick bedded.

Karst potential mapping, previous investigations and construction indicates the potential for development of karst features in this area is very high. Sinkholes were noted proximate to the site upon review of geologic mapping. The Ste. Genevieve Limestone Formation is known for the presence and development of karst features. As with most karst landscapes, overburden thickness commonly varies greatly due to the differential rates of chemical weathering and patterns of surface drainage. The weathering of limestone bedrock in such formations commonly results in knife-like ridges surrounding surface depressions, where depth to competent bedrock is much less than in the base of depressions, where weathering is more continuous, resulting in the distinctive “bowl shaped topography”. It is impossible to fully identify all geologic hazards during the course of a typical geotechnical investigation. It should be understood and accepted by the owner that there is some risk of future ground subsidence when building in karst areas.

3 SCOPE OF WORK PERFORMED

The geotechnical exploration consisted of two soil test borings. The borings were advanced to the predetermined boring termination depth of 15 feet. A boring layout is included in Appendix A of this report.

The borings were drilled by an AEI drill crew using a track-mounted drill rig equipped with continuous flight hollow-stem augers. A Geotechnical Technician was on-site throughout the fieldwork to log the soils encountered during the drilling operation. During logging, particular attention was given to the soil color, texture, consistency and apparent moisture content. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) were performed on 2 ½-foot centers within the first ten feet and on five-foot centers thereafter. In addition, undisturbed Shelby tube (ST’s) samples were obtained at selected depth intervals for unconfined compressive strength testing. All recovered samples were transported to our laboratory for further classification and testing. The individual soil samples were visually classified by experienced laboratory technicians and verified by a Geotechnical Engineer based on texture, strength and plasticity. A copy of the boring logs is included in Appendix B.

The natural moisture content was determined in the laboratory for each recovered sample. Atterberg Limits and unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on the soil samples representative of the predominant soil horizons. The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix C.

The soils were classified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The Unified symbol for each stratum is shown on the legend for the typed boring logs. The testing was performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards for such tests.

4 RESULTS OF THE EXPLORATION

4.1 GENERAL

Information provided in the Appendices for this report includes boring locations, results of the laboratory tests and other relevant geotechnical information. A description of the subsurface soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions follows.

4.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

The generalized subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, including descriptions of the various strata and their depths and thicknesses are presented on the typed Boring Logs in Appendix B.

The stratification shown on the boring logs is based on the field and laboratory data acquired during this exploration. The change in soil from one type to another shown at specific depths on the logs is, in general, not intended to indicate a zone of exact change but rather the general area of change from one soil type to another; in-situ, the transition is gradual.

Topsoil was encountered at the surface in each boring with a thickness of six inches.

Beneath the surface materials, lean clay fill was encountered to depths of approximately

1.5 feet. The fill was typically described as lean clay, light brown to reddish brown in color, moist, and medium stiff to stiff in soil strength consistency. The lean clay fill was underlain by crushed aggregate to a depth of three feet. Beneath the crushed aggregate, lean to fat clay was encountered to the boring termination depths. The clay was typically described as either lean or fat, containing various amounts of sand in some instances, brown to reddish brown in color, moist, and medium stiff to stiff in soil strength consistency.

SPT-N values in the cohesive soils ranged from four to 13 blows per foot (bpf), excluding 50+ blow counts, with most values ranging from seven to eight bpf. Corresponding Qp values ranged from 0.75 to 4.0 tons per square foot (tsf) with most values ranging from

1.0 to 2.0 tsf. Together, the SPT-N and Qp values are indicative of medium stiff to very stiff soil strength consistencies.

SPT-N values in the granular soils were four and six blows per foot (bpf), excluding blow counts that exceed 50+ bpf. The SPT-N values for non-cohesive soils are indicative of loose soil strength consistencies.

Atterberg limits tests yielded liquid limit results of 19 percent with corresponding plasticity indices of seven and eight percent. The results of soil classification testing indicate that the residual soils at the site classify as CL (Clay of Low Plasticity), in accordance with the USCS. Natural moisture contents of the cohesive soils range from about 13 to 36 percent, with most values ranging from 16 to 19 percent. Results of Atterberg limits and moisture content testing indicate that the residual clays are typically at a moisture content near to five percent wet of the plastic limit.

Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on selected undisturbed soil samples resulting in soil compressive strengths of 1,609 and 1,493 pounds per square foot (psf) with corresponding dry unit weights of 108.1 and 115.8 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), respectively. The results of individual lab testing results are included in Appendix C.

4.3 BEDROCK CONDITIONS

Refusal, as would be indicated by the Driller on the field boring logs, indicates a depth where essentially no downward progress can be made by the auger. It is normally indicative of a very hard or very dense material such as large boulders or the upper bedrock surface or where the N-value indicates essentially no penetration of the split-spoon sampler. Auger refusal was not encountered in either soil test boring.

4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of drilling. In cohesive soils such as those encountered at the site, a long time is required for the hydrostatic groundwater level to come to equilibrium in the borehole. The short-term groundwater levels reported by the drill crew are not generally indicative of the long-term groundwater level. To accurately determine the long-term groundwater level, as well as the seasonal and precipitation induced fluctuations of the groundwater level, it is necessary to install piezometers in the borings, and monitor them for an extended length of time. Frequently, groundwater conditions affecting construction in this region are caused by trapped or perched groundwater, which occurs within the soil materials or at the soil/rock interface in irregular, discontinuous locations. If these water bodies are encountered during excavation, they can produce seepage durations and rates that will vary depending on the recent rainfall activity and the hydraulic conductivity of the material.

4.5 SEISMIC CONDITIONS

According to the Kentucky Building Code, 2018 Edition, and the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, Site Class D should be utilized for any seismic structural design.

Soil liquefaction analysis was outside the scope of this investigation. Prior studies in this region on similar soil types indicate that the potential for liquefaction is low.

Consideration for seismic loading and liquefaction potential beyond this level of investigation is left to the discretion of the structural and foundation design engineer.

5 ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations that follow are based on our conceptual understanding of the project. As the design is advanced, please notify us of any significant design changes so that our recommendations can be reviewed and modified as necessary.

5.1 GENERAL SITE WORK

5.1.1 On-Site Soils

The near-surface soils on this site are low to moderate plasticity clays which classify as CL, in accordance with the USCS. Efforts should be made to schedule earthwork activities during the late spring to early fall months since these soils will pump, rut and lose strength with moisture contents more than several points wet or dry of the optimum moisture content for compaction. These soils are judged suitable for use as fill material at the site provided provisions are made for wetting or drying the soils for compaction and are placed and compacted in accordance with Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6.

5.1.2 General Fill Requirements

Any material, whether borrowed on-site or imported to the site, placed as engineered fill on the project site beneath the proposed building or other proposed on-grade structures such as pavement, parking lots, sidewalks, etc., should be an approved material, free of environmental contamination, vegetation, topsoil, organic material, wet soil, construction debris, and rock fragments greater than six inches in diameter. We recommend that any borrow material, if needed, consist of granular or lean clay materials or mixtures thereof with Unified Classifications of CL, SC, or GC. We further recommend high plasticity clays, known as fat clays (CH soils) not be imported to the site due to their potential for volume changes with fluctuations in moisture content.

The preferred borrow material should have a Plasticity Index (PI) less than 30 and a standard Proctor maximum dry density of at least 95 pcf. Engineering classification and standard Proctor tests should be performed on all potential borrow soils and the test results evaluated by an AEI Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate the suitability of the soil for use as engineered fill.

5.1.3 Off-Site Soils

If off-site material is needed, it should meet the requirements specified in Section 5.1.2 above.

5.1.4 Topsoil Stripping

Prior to earthwork operations, topsoil and surface plant material root mat should be stripped from both cut and fill areas and stockpiled for landscaping purposes.

5.1.5 Subgrade Evaluation/Conditioning

Once the topsoil is removed, areas to receive fill should be “proof-rolled” under the observation of an AEI Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Technician to evaluate the subgrade for suitability for fill placement. The proof-rolling should be performed using heavy construction equipment such as a fully loaded single or tandem axle dump truck (approximately 20-25 tons), passing repeatedly over the subgrade at a slow rate of speed.

Subgrade soils that are considered unstable after proof-rolling should be stabilized by additional compaction or by one or more of the following methods; in-place stabilization using chemical methods (lime/soil cement), removal and replacement with engineered fill, partial depth removal and replacement with a crushed (angular) aggregate layer, or partial depth removal and replacement with a geogrid and a crushed aggregate layer. The specific method of treatment will be based on the conditions present at the time the proof-rolling is performed and local availability of materials and economic factors. The selection of the appropriate method to mitigate degrading subgrade soils is dependent on the time of year site work is anticipated, cost, anticipated effectiveness, and scheduling impacts. AEI can assist in selecting this method considering all factors.

Once the subgrade is judged to be relatively uniform and suitable for support of engineered fill, fill areas should be brought to design elevations with onsite soil and/or suitable off-site borrow material placed and compacted as specified in Section 5.1.6 Fill Placement.

5.1.6 Fill Placement

Lean clay, CL, soil placed under building areas should be placed in maximum eight inch (loose thickness) horizontal lifts, with each lift being compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, at a moisture content within two percent of optimum. The compaction requirement may be reduced to 95 percent in proposed paved areas and to 92 percent in proposed landscape areas. Based on the results of moisture content tests performed in the borings, drying of the on-site soils will be necessary to achieve moisture contents suitable for compaction. Representative and adequate field density testing should be performed by AEI to verify that compaction requirements have been met.

5.1.7 Soil Movement

Site grading should be maintained during construction so that positive drainage is promoted at all times. Final site grading should be accomplished in such a manner as to divert surface runoff and roof drains away from the foundation elements. Precipitation runoff should be collected in storm sewers as quickly as possible.

5.1.8 Site Soil Practices

Working with the on-site soils will demand sensible construction practices and techniques. Some of these include:

• Prevent stripping too far in advance of actual earthwork needs. Problems arise when broad areas of clay/silt mixtures are exposed and allowed to become wet and soft from rainfall. Once saturated, deep rutting can occur by movement of construction equipment.

• Strip areas to receive fill in small, sequential areas as needed. These areas should be limited to the contractor’s abilities to reasonably place and compact fill material.

• Schedule earthwork construction to take full advantage of a summer season.

Generally, the on-site clays need to be placed at two percent wet of optimum moisture content to achieve compaction and reduce the potential for subgrade volume change. This moisture range is difficult to achieve in the winter and early spring when rainfall activity is more prevalent and soil drying is not always possible.

• Maintain good surface drainage during earthwork construction. Grade construction areas on a daily basis if necessary to promote sheet drainage of precipitation and seal all engineered fill placed with a smooth drum steel roller at the end of each day.

• Perform frequent density tests during fill placement to confirm achievement of proper compaction.

5.2 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS

5.2.1 Recommended Bearing Capacity Values

The on-site soils are suitable for support of isolated spread and continuous wall footings.

Based on the borings drilled, the on-site soils are suitable for moderate bearing pressures.

A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf is recommended for design of structures supported on the native soils or properly placed and compacted engineered fill. Footings which fail to meet the design bearing capacity should be undercut to suitable material and may be backfilled with KYTC No. 57 stone or similar to the design bearing elevation.

These recommendations are provided in consideration of the field-testing, laboratory testing, local codes, and our experience with materials of similar description.

5.2.2 Recommended Minimum Footing Dimensions

The minimum recommended width of continuous wall footings is 18 inches. The minimum recommended plan dimension for isolated spread footings is 24 inches. Actual foundation sizes should be determined by the foundation engineer based on design structure loads and the net allowable bearing capacity values presented in 5.2.1.

5.2.3 Footing Trenches

We recommend that the bottom of exterior continuous strip spread footings extend a minimum of 24 inches below finished exterior grade to provide protection against frost penetration related problems in normal winters. Interior foundations not exposed to severe drying, freezing temperatures, and/or severe moisture fluctuations can be constructed at relatively shallow depths as appropriate for construction. Foundation construction should follow these recommendations:

• Foundation concrete should be placed in the excavations the same day the trenches are cut.

• Exposed bearing surfaces should be protected from severe drying, freezing, and water accumulation. A concrete “mud-mat” may be constructed over the bearing materials if the excavation must remain exposed to the elements for an extended period of time.

• Any loose soil, debris, or excess water should be removed from the bearing surface by hand cleaning prior to concrete placement.

• The foundation-bearing surface should be level or appropriately benched.

• Foundation materials that have deteriorated as a result of the elements should be removed prior to concrete placement.

• Foundation trenches should be “clean-cut” where possible and constructed without the use of forms.

• Reinforcing steel should be placed in all footings to provide strength to distribute loads on the foundation that may be overlying weak or more compressible foundation materials to stronger adjacent materials.

5.2.4 Grade Supported Floor Slab Recommendations

We recommend on-grade supported floor slabs be isolated from the building foundations and allowed to float free and settle differentially with the building. We have estimated an Effective Modulus of Soil Subgrade Reaction (k) of 100 pci.

The final floor slab design, including the amount of and type of steel reinforcement (welded wire mesh or bar reinforcing) will be dependent on the structural engineer’s evaluation of the final grade slab thickness, concrete compressive strength, and actual slab loadings. Additional design and construction recommendations are provided as follows:

• Proof-rolling of the cut subgrade and existing subgrade should be performed to identify soft or unstable soil prior to engineered fill placement. Soft soils should be removed to the extent determined in the field by the AEI Geotechnical Engineer or Technician. Proof-rolling of the final floor slab subgrade should also be performed prior to floor slab construction and any defects appropriately repaired as recommended in the field by AEI.

• The floor slab should be supported on a minimum 6-inch compacted layer of free draining granular base material to distribute concentrated loads, improve drainage, and reduce the risk of deterioration of the prepared subgrade during construction.

The stone should be kept moist not wet, immediately before placement of concrete to limit differential curing conditions at the top and bottom of the slab.

• Typically, a vapor barrier is recommended to prevent water vapor transmissions that normally have the potential to adversely affect the floor coverings ability to bond to the slab. Recommendations from ACI 302.1 R 96, “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction”, should be utilized. Joints between slab sections should contain keys or dowels to permit slab rotation but to reduce extreme vertical differential displacements.

5.2.5 Potential Foundation Movement

A detailed settlement analysis was beyond the scope of this investigation. It is anticipated that less than 1-inch of total settlement with ½-inch of differential settlement will occur for foundations designed to bear on soil.

These estimates assume that the foundations are designed and constructed according to the recommendations in this report and in conjunction with sound foundation construction practice.

5.3 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.3.1 Construction Monitoring/Testing

Field density and moisture content determinations should be made on each lift of fill with a minimum of one test per 3,000 to 5,000 square feet in building pad areas, one test per lift per 5,000 to 10,000 square feet in other fill areas, and one test per lift per 100 to 200 linear feet of utility trench backfill. All construction operations involving earthwork and paving should be performed in the presence of an experienced representative of AEI. The representative would operate under the direct supervision of an AEI Geotechnical Engineer. Some adjustments in the test frequencies may be required based upon the general fill types, changes in the fill material and soil conditions at the time of placement.

Site problems can be avoided or reduced if proper field observation and testing services are provided. We recommend all foundation excavations, proof-rolling, site and subgrade preparation, subgrade stabilization (if used), and pavement construction be monitored by AEI. Density tests should be performed to verify compaction and moisture content for all earthwork operations. Field observations should be performed prior to and during concrete placement operations.

5.3.2 Earthwork Considerations

The surface soils at the site are susceptible to loss of bearing capacity (pumping) by the action of water and construction equipment. Once the subgrade has been stripped, cut to grade and passed a proof-roll, it should be sealed at the end of each filling day with a smooth drum roller and sloped to sheet drain rainwater. Any material disturbed by rainwater and construction operations should be undercut prior to placing the next lift of fill.

If the project is to begin in the fall and continue through the winter, care must be taken not to place frozen soil, as proper compaction will be impractical. Moisture contents must also be carefully monitored during the winter, as wet soil will be difficult to dry.

5.3.3 Limitations

The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on information gathered from the borings advanced during this exploration using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by competent members of the engineering profession. No warranties can be made regarding the continuity of conditions between the borings. We will retain samples acquired for this project for a period of 30 days subsequent to the submittal date printed on the cover of this report. After this period, the samples will be discarded unless otherwise requested.

APPENDIX A

Boring Layout

APPENDIX B

Boring Logs

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES

The general field procedures employed by the Field Services Center are summarized in the following outline. The procedures utilized by the AEI Field Service Center are recognized methods for determining soil and rock distribution and ground water conditions. These methods include geophysical and in situ methods as well as borings.

Soil Borings are drilled to obtain subsurface samples using one of several alternate techniques depending upon the surface conditions. Borings are advanced into the ground using continuous flight augers. At prescribed intervals throughout the boring depths, soil samples are obtained with a split-spoon or thin-walled sampler and sealed in airtight glass jars and labeled. The sampler is first seated 6 inches to penetrate loose cuttings and then driven an additional foot, where possible, with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each six-inch increment is recorded. The penetration resistance, or “N-value” is designated as the number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot and, when properly evaluated, is an index to cohesion for clays and relative density for sands. The split spoon sampling procedures used during the exploration are in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Split spoon samples are considered to provide disturbed samples, yet are appropriate for most engineering applications.

Thin-walled (Shelby tube) samples are considered to provide undisturbed samples and obtained when warranted in general accordance with ASTM D 1587.

These drilling methods are not capable of penetrating through material designated as “refusal materials.” Refusal, thus indicated, may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling procedures are required to determine the character and continuity of refusal materials.

Core Drilling Procedures for use on refusal materials. Prior to coring, casing is set in the boring through the overburden soils. Refusal materials are then cored according to ASTM D-2113 using a diamond bit attached to the end of a hollow double tube core barrel. This device is rotated at high speeds and the cuttings are brought to the surface by circulating water. Samples of the material penetrated are protected and retained in the inner tube, which is retrieved at the end of each drill run.

Upon retrieval of the inner tube the core is recovered, measured and placed in boxes for storage.

The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field test boring record by the driller. The record contains information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as coarse gravel, cobbles, etc., and observations between samples. Therefore, these boring records contain both factual and interpretive information. The field boring records are on file in our office.

The soil and rock samples plus the field boring records are reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. The engineer classifies the soil in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2487 and D 2488 and prepares the final boring records which are the basis for all evaluations and recommendations.

Representative portions of soil samples are placed in sealed containers and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples are examined to verify the driller’s field classifications.

Test Boring Records are attached which show the soil descriptions and penetration resistances.

The final boring records represent our interpretation of the contents of the field records based on the results of the engineering examinations and tests of the field samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and ground water conditions at these boring locations. The lines designate the interface between soil or refusal materials on the records and on profiles represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The final boring records are included with this report.

Water table readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the “Boring Logs”. These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our field investigation. Where impervious soils are encountered (clayey soils) the amount of water seepage into the boring is small, and it is generally not possible to establish the location of hydrostatic water table through water level readings. The ground water table may also be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should be expected with variations in precipitation, surface run-off, evaporation and other factors.

The time of boring water level reported on the boring records is determined by field crews as the drilling tools are advanced. The boring water level is detected by changes in the drilling rate, soil samples obtained, etc. Additional water table readings are generally obtained at least 24 hours after the borings are completed. The time lag of at least 24 hours is used to permit stabilization of the ground water table which has been disrupted by the drilling operations. The readings are taken by dropping a weighted line down the boring or using as electrical probe to detect the water level surface.

Occasionally the borings will cave-in, preventing water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water above the caved-in zone. The cave-in depth is also measured and recorded on the boring records.

Sampling Terminology

Undisturbed Sampling: Thin-walled or Shelby tube samples used for visual examination, classification tests and quantitative laboratory testing. This procedure is described by ASTM D 1587. Each tube, together with the encased soil, is carefully removed from the ground, made airtight and transported to the laboratory. Locations and depths of undisturbed samples are shown on the “Boring Logs.”

Bag Sampling: Bulk samples of soil are obtained at selected locations. These samples consist of soil brought to the surface by the drilling augers, or obtained from test pits or the ground surface using hand tools. Samples are placed in bags, with sealed jar samples of the material, and taken to our laboratory for testing where more mass material is required (i.e. Proctors and CBR’s). The locations of these samples are indicated on the appropriate logs, or on the Boring Location Plan.

T:\10 PROJECTS\210-000 Folder Template\Geotech\REPORTS\Class System.doc

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

COHESIVE SOILS

(Clay, Silt, and Mixtures)

CONSISTENCY SPT N-VALUE Qu/Qp (tsf) PLASTICITY

Very Soft 2 blows/ft or less 0 – 0.25 Degree of Plasticity Soft 2 to 4 blows/ft 0.25 – 0.49 Plasticity Index (PI) Medium Stiff 4 to 8 blows/ft 0.50 – 0.99 Low 0 – 7 Stiff 8 to 15 blows/ft 1.00 – 2.00 Medium 8 – 22 Very Stiff 15 to 30 blows/ft 2.00 – 4.00 High over 22 Hard 30 blows/ft or more > 4.00

NON-COHESIVE SOILS

(Silt, Sand, Gravel, and Mixtures)

DENSITY SPT N-VALUE PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION

Very Loose 4 blows/ft or less Boulders 12 inch diameter or more Loose 4 to 10 blows/ft Cobbles 3 to 12 inch diameter Medium Dense 10 to 30 blows/ft Gravel Coarse – 1 to 3 inch Dense 30 to 50 blows/ft Medium – ½ to 1 inch Very Dense 50 blows/ft or more Fine – ¼ to ½ inch Sand Coarse – 0.6mm to ¼ inch

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS Medium – 0.2mm to 0.6mm Descriptive Term Percent Trace 1 – 10 Fine – 0.05mm to 0.2mm Trace to Some 11 – 20 Some 21 – 35 Silt 0.05mm to 0.005mm And 36 – 50 Clay 0.005mm

NOTES

Classification – The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify soil unless otherwise noted.

Standard “N” Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM D1586) – Driving a 2-inch O.D., 1 3/8-inch I.D. sampler a distance of 1 foot into undisturbed soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling a distance of 30 inches. It is customary to drive the spoon 6-inches to seat the sampler into undisturbed soil, and then perform the test. The number of hammer blows for seating the spoon and making the tests are recorded for each 6 inches of penetration on the field drill long (e.g., 10/8/7). On the report log, the Standard Penetration Test result (i.e., the N value) is normally presented and consists of the sum of the 2nd and 3rd penetration counts (i.e., N = 8 + 7 = 15 blows/ft.)

Soil Property Symbols

Qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength N: Standard Penetration Value (see above) Qp: Unconfined Comp. Strength (pocket pent.) omc: Optimum Moisture content LL: Liquid Limit, % (Atterberg Limit) PL: Plastic Limit, % (Atterberg Limit) PI: Plasticity Index mdd: Maximum Dry Density

SPT

SPT

ST

SPT

SPT

SPT

TOPSOIL (6 INCHES)

(CL) FILL, lean CLAY, light brown to reddish brown, moist, stiff CRUSHED AGGREGATE, light gray, loose

(CL) lean CLAY, trace sand, reddish brown, moist, medium stiff

(CH) fat CLAY, reddish brown, moist, very stiff

Bottom of borehole at 15.5 feet.

Qu= 1,604 psf

3-4-9 (13)

6-4-2 (6)

2-3-4 (7)

4-3-5 (8)

4-8-48 (56)

2.0

1.0

0.75

2.0

2.5

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 690.2 ft

LOGGED BY David Forish

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY Peyton Payne

DATE STARTED 2/28/23 COMPLETED 2/28/23

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

) ATTERBERG

LIMITS

R E

M A

R K

S

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

B-1

CLIENT AES Group, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 223-052

PROJECT NAME MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter

PROJECT LOCATION Mammoth Cave, KY

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/3

/2

3:

T :\2

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A \G

E O

T E

C H

\L A

B \M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A .G

P J

SPT

SPT

SPT

ST

SPT

SPT

TOPSOIL (6 INCHES)

(CL) FILL, lean CLAY, light brown to reddish brown, moist, medium stiff CRUSHED AGGREGATE, light gray, loose

(CL) lean CLAY, brown, moist, soft

(CH) fat CLAY, reddish brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff

Bottom of borehole at 15.5 feet.

Qu= 1,443 psf

3-4-4 (8)

1-2-2 (4)

3-2-2 (4)

2-3-3 (6)

3-4-5 (9)

1.0

1.5

2.0

1.0

4.0

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION 690.7 ft

LOGGED BY David Forish

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY Peyton Payne

DATE STARTED 2/28/23 COMPLETED 2/28/23

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

D E

P T

H (f t)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

) ATTERBERG

LIMITS

R E

M A

R K

S

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

B-2

CLIENT AES Group, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 223-052

PROJECT NAME MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter

PROJECT LOCATION Mammoth Cave, KY

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/3

/2

3:

T :\2

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A \G

E O

T E

C H

\L A

B \M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A .G

CLIENT AES Group, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 223-052

PROJECT NAME MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter

PROJECT LOCATION Mammoth Cave, KY

ABBREVIATIONS

TV

PID

UC

ppm

TORVANE

PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION

PARTS PER MILLION

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTIC INDEX (%)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)

NON PLASTIC

PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)

LL

PI

W

DD

NP

-200

PP

Standard Penetration Test

Shelby Tube

SAMPLER SYMBOLSLITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS

(Unified Soil Classification System)

CH: USCS High Plasticity Clay

CL: USCS Low Plasticity Clay

FILL: Fill (made ground)

GP: USCS Poorly-graded Gravel

TOPSOIL: Topsoil

WELL CONSTRUCTION SYMBOLS

KEY TO SYMBOLS

Water Level at Time Drilling, or as Shown

Water Level After 24 Hours, or as Shown

Water Level at End of Drilling, or as Shown

K E

Y T

O S

Y M

B O

LS

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

0:

T :\2

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A \G

E O

T E

C H

\L A

B \M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A .G

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Testing Results

0 20 40 60 80 100

B-1

B-2

ML

CL

MH

CH

CL-ML

L A S T I C I T Y

I N D E X

LIQUID LIMIT

Fines Classification

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LL PL PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS

4.0

6.5

BOREHOLE DEPTH

CLIENT AES Group, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER 223-052

PROJECT NAME MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter

PROJECT LOCATION Mammoth Cave, KY

A T

T E

R B

E R

G L

IM

IT

S

G

IN

T S

T D

U S

L A

B .G

D T

/2

/2

0:

T :\2

P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A \G

E O

T E

C H

\L A

B \M

A M

M O

T H

C A

V E

F R

O Z

E N

N

IA

G R

A .G

Unconfined Compression Test

ASTM D2166

Project Number:

Project:

Sampling Date:

Sample Number:

Client Name:

Remarks:

MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter 223-052

2/28/2023

ST#1

AES Group, Inc.

4.0 ft - 6.0 ftSample Depth:

Mammoth Cave, KYLocation:

Boring Number: B-1

Received Date: 2/28/2023

Before Test

Strain Rate (in/min)

Test Data

Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)

Height (in) Diameter (in)

Void Ratio:

Saturation (%):

Dry Density (pcf)

Moisture Content (%):

Specimen Number 87654321

Strain at Failure (%):

18.9

108.1 90.2 0.571

2.8550 5.7060

1609.10 804.55

0.097

8.33

AES Group, Inc.

ST#1

2/28/2023 223-052 MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter

Remarks:

Client Name:

Sample Number:

Sampling Date:

Project:

Project Number:

Liquid Limit: 1912Plastic Limit:2.72Specific Gravity:

UDType:

2.00Height To Diameter Ratio:

Soil Classification: CL

Location: Mammoth Cave, KY

Sample Depth: 4.0 ft - 6.0 ft

Specimen 1 Failure Sketch

Specimen 2 Failure Sketch

Specimen 3 Failure Sketch

Specimen 4 Failure Sketch

Specimen 5 Failure Sketch

Specimen 6 Failure Sketch

Specimen 7 Failure Sketch

Specimen 8 Failure Sketch

128.5Wet Density (pcf)

0.9Strain Limit @ 15% (in)

1.70Strain Rate (%/min):

0Failure Angle (°):

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Boring Number: B-1

Project Number:

Project:

Sampling Date:

Sample Number:

Client Name:

Remarks:

MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter 223-052

2/28/2023

ST#1

AES Group, Inc.

6.5 ft - 8.5 ftSample Depth:

Mammoth Cave, KYLocation:

Boring Number: B-2

Received Date: 2/28/2023

Before Test

Strain Rate (in/min)

Test Data

Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)

Height (in) Diameter (in)

Void Ratio:

Saturation (%):

Dry Density (pcf)

Moisture Content (%):

Specimen Number 87654321

Strain at Failure (%):

15.3

115.8 89.3 0.467

2.8480 5.6640

1493.20 746.60

0.0965

7.07

AES Group, Inc.

ST#1

2/28/2023 223-052 MACA-Rehabilitate Frozen Niagara Shelter

Remarks:

Client Name:

Sample Number:

Sampling Date:

Project:

Project Number:

Liquid Limit: 1911Plastic Limit:2.72Specific Gravity:

UDType:

1.99Height To Diameter Ratio:

Soil Classification: CL

Location: Mammoth Cave, KY

Sample Depth: 6.5 ft - 8.5 ft

Specimen 1 Failure Sketch

Specimen 2 Failure Sketch

Specimen 3 Failure Sketch

Specimen 4 Failure Sketch

Specimen 5 Failure Sketch

Specimen 6 Failure Sketch

Specimen 7 Failure Sketch

Specimen 8 Failure Sketch

133.5Wet Density (pcf)

0.8Strain Limit @ 15% (in)

1.70Strain Rate (%/min):

0Failure Angle (°):

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Boring Number: B-2

APPENDIX D

Typical Sinkhole

Treatment Detail

Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

To help manage your risks, this information is being provided because subsurface issues are a major cause of construction delays, cost overruns, disputes, and claims.

Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Projects, Purposes, and People

Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering exploration conducted for an engineer may not fulfill the needs of a contractor or even another engineer. Each geotechnical engineering exploration and report is unique and is prepared solely for the client. No one except the client should rely on the geotechnical engineering report without first consulting with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. The report should not be applied for any project or purpose except the one originally intended.

Read the Entire Report

To avoid serious problems, the full geotechnical engineering report should be read in its entirety. Do not only read selected sections or the executive summary.

A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors is the Basis for a Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical engineers consider a numerous unique, project-specific factors when determining the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, project costs, risk management preferences, proposed structures, structures on site, topography, and other proposed or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and utilities. Unless indicated otherwise by the geotechnical engineer who conducted the original exploration, a geotechnical engineering report should not be relied upon if it was:

• not prepared for you or your project,

• not prepared for the specific site explored, or

• completed before important changes to the project were implemented.

Typical changes that can lessen the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a multi-story hotel to a parking lot

• finished floor elevation, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, anticipated loads or

• project ownership

Geotechnical engineers cannot be held liable or responsible for issues that occur because their report did not take into account development items of which they were not informed. The geotechnical engineer should always be notified of any project changes. Upon notification, it should be requested of the geotechnical engineer to give an assessment of the impact of the project changes.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change

A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that exist at the time of the exploration.