Addendum 1.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

DEPARTMENT FOR FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-154-23

FOR: Section Engineer Office Highway Department Maintenance Garage Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, District 8 Somerset, Kentucky

DATE: December 7, 2022

RFB-785-2300000295

ADDENDUM NO. One (1)

BIDDER SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AS SAME SHALL BECOME BINDING

UPON THE CONTRACT TO BE ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO THIS INVITATION TO BID.

Item 1: Refer to addendum to be distributed by Lynn Imaging for all additions, deletions, and/or changes to specifications and/or drawings.

END OF ADDENDUM

Invitation to Bid No. RFB-154-23 For: Section Engineer Office Highway Department Maintenance Garage Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, District 8

Kyla Satterly, Statewide Procurement Analyst II Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

Addendum 01

K Y T C – S e c t i o n E n g i n e e r O f f i c e – D i s t r i c t 8 104 Refinery Road, Somerset, Kentucky, Pulaski County Engineering File #: 609-CAAC-Z001-A33 Request For Bid #: RFB-154-23

Addendum 01 Date: 07 December 2022

THE BIDDING AND GENERAL DOCUMENTS, NOTES, AND DRAWINGS ARE CLARIFIED OR CHANGED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING. THE BIDDERS SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS

ADDENDUM ON THE PROPOSAL FORM IN THE SPACE PROVIDED.

ARCHITECTURAL I TEMS:

G E N E R A L A R C H I T E C T U R A L I T E M S :

A1.1 Site visit Attendance Record, attached.

A1.2 Site Geo-Technical Report, attached

A1.3 Site Survey Plan, attached.

NOTE: FOR REFERENCE ONLY – THIS IS NOT PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

A1.4 Fence running through middle of project site will be removed by the User Agency (entire length).

MEP I TEMS:

M E P D R A W I N G I T E M S :

A1.5 Sheet E001 – Refer to “Wall Mounted Data Equipment Rack Detail”.

a. Replace the term “Cat 6” with the term “Cat 6A” in all locations.

b. Rack shall be manufactured by CPI or equivalent by Middle Atlantic or nVent.

Addendum 01

c. Add the following note: “Provide one 1-foot patch cord for each data/voice jack in the patch panel at the data rack. Provide one 10-foot patch cord for each data/voice jack at the workstation end. Provide 10% stock spare patch cords.

A1.6 Sheet E101 – Provide violet and gray 0-10V dimming conductors from wall station to light fixtures in all rooms indicated with dimming style occupancy sensors.

A1.7 Sheet E101 – Remove dimming occupancy wall station in Workroom and replace with a non-occupancy dimming wall station.

A1.8 Sheet E101 – Remove ceiling mounted occupancy sensor in Workroom.

A1.9 Sheet E201 – Add the following to “General Notes – Systems”

a. All structured cabling shall be CommScope SYSTIMAX Cat 6A 2091B (plenum rated) or equivalent Cat 6A products by Leviton/BerkTek, General Cable, or Superior Essex.

b. Data cables shall be Orange in color

c. Voice cables shall be Gray in color

d. Cables shall be terminated to TIA 568B.

e. All cables shall be tested per Fluke Network TIA Category 6A Field Test Specification and report shall be submitted in project closeout documents. All cables that do not pass testing shall be replaced and retested until a passing report is achieved.

A1.10 Sheet E201 – Provide one data cable above ceiling centered in the Workroom for Owner provided Wireless Access Point.

A1.11 Sheet E201 – Provide one data cable above ceiling centered in the Reception Room for Owner provided Wireless Access Point.

E N D O F A D D E N D U M 0 1

Report of Geotechnical Exploration

KYTC District 8 Section Office

Somerset, Kentucky

S&ME Project No. 22830189

PREPARED FOR:

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Finance and Administration Cabinet

403 Wapping Street, 1st Floor

Frankfort, KY 40601

PREPARED BY:

S&ME, Inc.

2020 Liberty Road, Suite 105

Lexington, KY 40505

September 21, 2022

S&ME, Inc. | 2020 Liberty Road, Suite 105 | Lexington, KY 40505 | p 859.293.5518 | www.smeinc.com

September 21, 2022

Commonwealth of Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet 403 Wapping Street, 1st Floor Frankfort, KY 40601

Attention: Mr. Greg Schenck

E: greg.schenck@ky.gov

Reference: Report of Geotechnical Exploration

KYTC District 8 Section Office

S&ME Project No. 22830189

Dear Mr. Schenck, S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed the geotechnical exploration for the KYTC District 8 Section Office in Somerset, Kentucky in accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 22830189 as authorized by you on July 14, 2022.

The purpose of this exploration was to obtain subsurface data at the site pursuant to construction of the section office building. This report explains our understanding of the project, documents our findings, and presents our conclusions and engineering recommendations.

S&ME appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. We look forward to helping you through project completion. If you have any questions, please call.

Sincerely, S&ME, Inc.

Deron Zierer, GIT Andrew M. Fiehler, PE Staff Professional Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Senior Reviewer: Richard S. Weigand, PE

Somerset, Kentucky

Error! No text of specified style in document. ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Project Information

3.0 Site Geology

4.0 Exploration Methods

4.1 Field Exploration

4.2 Laboratory Testing

5.0 Subsurface Conditions

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 General Discussion

6.1.1 High Plasticity Soils

6.1.2 Underground Utilities

6.1.3 Karst

6.2 Site Preparation

6.3 Foundation Recommendations

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

6.5 Floor Slab Recommendations

6.6 Groundwater Considerations

7.0 Follow-Up Services

8.0 Limitations of Report

Appendices Appendix I – Site Location Map / Boring Location Plan Appendix II – Test Boring Logs Appendix III – Laboratory Test Results Appendix IV – ACI Floor Design Guide

Error! No text of specified style in document. 1

1.0 Introduction

S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed the geotechnical exploration for the KYTC District 8 Section Office in Somerset, Kentucky in accordance with S&ME Proposal No. 22830189 as authorized by you on July 14, 2022. The purpose of this exploration was to obtain subsurface data at the site pursuant to construction of the section office building.

This report explains our understanding of the project, documents our findings, and presents our conclusions and engineering recommendations.

2.0 Project Information

The proposed 40 foot by 50 foot office will be constructed adjacent to the maintenance garage in Somerset, Kentucky. The site footprint currently consists of a combination of gravel and asphalt, which was used as a parking and general storage area. Site information shows less than 2 feet of relief across the proposed footprint according to site observations and our boring elevations. The planned Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) of the new structure is understood to be 927.5 feet. Shallow spread footings are anticipated for the new office building.

3.0 Site Geology

A review of the USGS geologic map of the Somerset Quadrangle (1974) indicates that the site is underlain by the Mississippian aged St. Louis Limestone. The St. Louis Limestone consists of very dark to light gray limestone and siltstone containing abundant invertebrate fossils. The soil borings advanced during the subsurface exploration did not encounter bedrock at the termination depths of 20 feet for each boring.

This area of Somerset is located within an area of the state mapped as having intense potential for karst and many karst sinkhole features are mapped in the site region. However, karst features such as closed depressions are not evident in the immediate proximity of this site on published topographical maps; the nearest mapped karst feature is located roughly 440 feet east of the proposed district office. Further, none of the borings drilled during this exploration encountered obvious evidence of karst activity.

4.0 Exploration Methods

The procedures used by S&ME for field sampling and testing are in general accordance with ASTM procedures and established engineering practice. Appendix II contains brief descriptions of the procedures used in this exploration.

4.1 Field Exploration

A total of three (3) test borings were drilled in the planned building footprint at locations that were safely accessible to our equipment and staff. Mr. Deron Zierer, GIT, with S&ME selected the final boring locations and measured the as-drilled locations with survey grade GPS equipment.

Error! No text of specified style in document. 2

The soil test borings, labeled B-1, B-2, and B-3, were each advanced to a depth of 20 feet. Boring Logs of the soil test borings are included in Appendix II. The soil test boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2) in Appendix I.

The borings were advanced by a CME-55 truck mounted drill rig using solid flight augers. We obtained soil samples using a split-barrel sampler driven into the soil overburden by an automatic hammer system in general accordance with ASTM D1586. The stratification lines shown on the boring records represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transitions may be more gradual than shown. A general description of our field procedures and a test boring record legend are provided in Appendix II of this report.

4.2 Laboratory Testing

The recovered split spoon soil samples were sealed in plastic sample bags and returned to our laboratory for visual classification. The soil samples were visually classified by a geotechnical engineer according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488 visual-manual system).

The laboratory testing program included natural moisture content tests, Atterberg Limit tests, and unconfined compressive strength tests on portions of recovered relatively undisturbed Shelby tube samples. The results of the laboratory tests are noted on the Boring Logs in Appendix II with individual test reports in Appendix III.

5.0 Subsurface Conditions

During the field exploration, we drilled three (3) soil test borings in the planned office building footprint. The Boring Location Plan in Appendix I shows the as-drilled boring locations.

Beneath 2 inches of asphalt pavement and 6 inches of gravel base, our three borings encountered 2.0 to 7.2 feet of firm to stiff residuum classified as red and red brown low plasticity (lean) clay (CL) underlain by firm to stiff residuum consisting of red high plasticity (fat) clay (CH) with a blocky structure and containing limestone fragments.

Each boring was advanced to the predetermined termination depth of 20 feet without encountering auger refusal.

For more detailed descriptions of the data obtained from our borings, please refer to our Boring Logs in Appendix

II.

The natural moisture content of the lean clay ranged from 19 to 21 percent. An Atterberg Limits test performed on the lean clay indicated a Liquid Limit (LL) of 37 percent with a Plasticity Index (PI) of 21 percent. The natural moisture content of the fat clay ranged from 28 to 39 percent. The liquid limit of the fat clay ranged from 66 to 75 percent, and PI values ranging from 37 to 49 percent.

Unconfined compressive strength testing performed on relatively undisturbed Shelby tube samples measured unconfined compressive strengths of 3,142 psf and 3,425 psf in the lean (CL) clay and the fat (CH) clay respectively.

The borings did not encounter groundwater during drilling and were dry upon the completion of drilling. Seasonal and periodic variations in precipitation can affect the observed water level conditions. Perched water is often encountered near the soil/bedrock transition and should not be considered the static groundwater table.

Error! No text of specified style in document. 3

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 General Discussion

Based on a Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) of 927.5 feet as noted on the site development plans, and a typical foundation embedment depth of 24 inches, we expect the foundations will bear within residual firm to stiff lean clay (CL).

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the conceptual design information provided, the data obtained from the geotechnical exploration, and our experience. They do not reflect variations in the subsurface conditions which may exist between our borings. If such variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary for us to re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations based upon on-site observation of the condition identified. We have recognized geotechnical and construction considerations that may affect the design of the office building. These issues are listed below and discussed further in the following sections:

High Plasticity Soils Existing Underground utilities Karst

6.1.1 High Plasticity Soils

Borings B-1 and B-3 encountered fat clay at about 8 feet below the planned finished floor elevation. Boring B-2 encountered fat clay with a PI of 37 at a depth of about 3½ feet below the planned finished floor elevation.

Shrink/swell of high plasticity soil (PI>30) can cause distress on concrete floor slabs. The shrink/swell occurs with typical seasonal fluctuations in moisture of the near surface soils. The zone of seasonal moisture variation is about 3 feet thus keeping at least 3 feet of low plasticity soil or crushed stone between the floor slab and fat clay is recommended.

Maintaining positive drainage away from the building, both during and after construction, is also recommended to reduce the potential for shrink/swell associated with the seasonal moisture changes.

6.1.2 Underground Utilities

Existing underground utilities were noted on site at the time of field exploration. When relocating or removing existing underground utility lines, the resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill to the planned subgrade elevation in accordance with Section 6.2 of this report. If utility lines within the building footprint are to be abandoned in-place, the lines should be fully grouted. We recommend that the existing utility trench backfill over abandoned lines be removed and replaced with structural fill.

Recommendations for structural fill placement are outlined in the following section of the report. Utility excavations are often narrow and difficult to adequately compact fill within. Widening the excavations to allow for larger equipment access is a common approach for backfilling narrow trenches. Remote controlled trench compactors or jumping jack type compactors are not recommended. If, however, narrow trenches must be utilized, it is recommended that a maximum thickness of 4 inches be permitted when compacting with lightweight equipment.

Error! No text of specified style in document. 4

After the utility trenches have been backfilled and compacted, a thorough proof roll of the building pad subgrade should be observed by an S&ME representative. All areas of soft or other unsuitable areas identified during proofrolling should be repaired at the engineer’s direction.

6.1.3 Karst

The St. Louis Limestone is prone to development of karst features including differential weathering and solutioning, including sinkhole formation. During our investigation we did not find evidence of karst features in the building footprint. If such features are encountered during construction, they should be evaluated by an S&ME engineer and remediated at their direction.

6.2 Site Preparation

Initial site preparation will consist of stripping the existing asphalt. The existing gravel base layer can be left in-place provided it is stable under a proofroll. Once the initial site stripping has occurred, we recommend the surface be methodically proof rolled under the observation of a qualified soils technician working under the general direction of a geotechnical engineer to identify soft or loose material that would possibly require further stabilization. Proof rolling consists of observing a loaded dump truck driving over the planned fill area. If areas excessive deflection, then these soils should be remediated at the engineer’s direction before continuing with construction. Undercutting the soft soils and placing structural fill is often the recommended remediation approach.

Structural fill should consist of inorganic natural soil with a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and a standard Proctor maximum dry density of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). To minimize the potential for shrink/swell behavior of soils placed within 3 feet of the structure floor slab or pavement subgrade, all borrow soil used as structural fill should have a Plasticity Index (PI) less than 30. Crushed stone such as Dense Graded Aggregate (DGA) or quarry screenings are also acceptable for controlling the shrink/swell potential. Asphalt and stone which is stripped from the site should not be used as structural fill.

Structural fill placement (either soil, DGA, or quarry screenings) should be placed in relatively thin (6 to 8-inch) layers. Within the building pad, compact fill should to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the fill should be maintained within ±3 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture content even though compaction may be achieved at moisture contents outside the specified range.

Based on the measured ground surface elevations and the planned finished floor elevation, less than 2 feet of fill is anticipated in the building pad. Since additional site grading is expected to be minimal, if any, we anticipate that structural fill within the building footprint will likely consist of DGA.

S&ME should be retained to observe the fill placement and perform in-place density testing on structural fill as a check that the previously recommended compaction criteria have been achieved. This allows our project engineer to monitor the quality of the fill construction and assess that the design criterion is being achieved in the field.

We further recommend that these tests be performed on a full-time basis by S&ME. The testing frequency for density tests performed on a full-time basis can be determined by our personnel based on the area to be tested, the grading equipment used, and construction schedule. Tests should be performed at vertical intervals of 8-inches or less (the maximum recommended lift thickness) as the fill is being placed. During placement of the

Error! No text of specified style in document. 5 upper 3 feet within the building pad, Atterberg limits testing on soil fill should be performed to verify the plasticity index of the soil is less than 30 percent.

6.3 Foundation Recommendations

Based on the results of the borings, we recommend the proposed building foundations be designed using a maximum allowable unit soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

We recommend foundations be a minimum of 24 inches wide. These dimensions allow for hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation process and the placement of reinforcing steel. The reinforcing steel should be clean and dry prior to concrete placement.

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

The current seismic design procedures outlined in the NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) guidelines mandate structural design loads to be based on the seismic coefficients of the site. Based on the results of our exploration and the geology of the area, we recommend a seismic site classification of “D” for the project site. This classification is further defined in the Kentucky Building Code.

6.5 Floor Slab Recommendations

The at-grade floor slab will bear on a newly placed structural fill. For the floor slab bearing on either compacted soil or crushed stone, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 80 psi/in be used in the floor slab design.

We suggest a layer of compacted DGA directly beneath the slab to enhance support and provide a working base for construction of the floor slab. The actual thickness should be based on the floor slab design, but our experience suggests a minimum depth of 4 inches. The DGA should be moist, but not wet, as the concrete is placed to reduce curling of the slab as the concrete cures.

We recommend that control joints be placed in the slab around columns and along footing supported walls to reduce cracking due to minor differential settlements. We recommend that ACI 302.1R-96 “GUIDE FOR CONCRETE FLOOR AND SLAB CONSTRUCTION” be followed for design and placement of concrete floor slabs, see attached form in Appendix III of this report.

6.6 Groundwater Considerations

Although no groundwater was encountered in any of the borings drilled at this site, S&ME recommends that both during and after construction, the site be graded to direct surface water runoff away from the new structure and pavement because of the shrink/swell susceptible soils encountered at this site. During construction, surface runoff and precipitation should be directed away from open excavations, and precipitation should not be permitted to collect and stand in open excavations as the soil will absorb water, lose strength, and potentially swell. Soils softened by standing water or disturbed by construction activity should be removed from excavations before construction materials are placed.

Error! No text of specified style in document. 6

7.0 Follow-Up Services

Our services should not end with the submission of this geotechnical report. S&ME should be kept involved throughout the design and construction process to maintain continuity and to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. To achieve this, we should be retained to review project plans and specifications with the designers to see that our recommendations are fully incorporated. We also should be retained to monitor and test the site preparation, foundation and building construction. If we are not allowed the opportunity to continue our involvement on this project, we cannot be held responsible for the recommendations in this report.

Foundation construction will be a critical aspect of this project. Our familiarity with the site and with the foundation recommendations will make us a valuable part of your construction quality assurance team. In addition, a qualified engineering technician should observe and test all structural concrete and steel. Only experienced, qualified persons trained in geotechnical engineering and familiar with foundation construction should be allowed to monitor and test foundations. Normally, full-time monitoring of the site work and foundation installation is appropriate.

8.0 Limitations of Report

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other representation or warranty either express or implied, is made.

We relied on project information given to us to develop our conclusions and recommendations. If project information described in this report is not accurate, or if it changes during project development, we should be notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information if necessary.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until construction. If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should be notified. This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.

Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi, bacteria).

If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a proposal and perform these services if requested.

S&ME should be retained to review the final plans and specifications to confirm that earthwork, foundation, and other recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations in this report are contingent on S&ME’s review of final plans and specifications followed by our observation and monitoring of earthwork and foundation construction activities.

For more information on the use and limitations of this report, please read the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) document that follows this page.

Im portantInform ation Ab outYour

GeotechnicalEngineering Report Variations in subsurface conditions can be a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns and claims.

The following information is provided to assist you in understanding and managing the risk of these variations.

Geotechnica lFindingsA re P rofessiona lO pinions

Geotechnical engineers cannot specify material properties as other design engineers do. Geotechnical material properties have a far broader range on a given site than any manufactured construction material, and some geotechnical material properties may change over time because of exposure to air and water, or human activity.

Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions at the time of exploration and only at the points where subsurface tests are performed or samples obtained.

Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their judgment to render professional opinions about site subsurface conditions. Their recommendations rely upon these professional opinions.

Variations in the vertical and lateral extent of subsurface materials may be encountered during construction that significantly impact construction schedules, methods and material volumes. While higher levels of subsurface exploration can mitigate the risk of encountering unanticipated subsurface conditions, no level of subsurface exploration can eliminate this risk.

Geotechnica lFindingsA re P rofessiona lO pinions

Professional geotechnical engineering judgment is required to develop a geotechnical exploration scope to obtain information necessary to support design and construction. A number of unique project factors are considered in developing the scope of geotechnical services, such as the exploration objective; the location, type, size and weight of the proposed structure; proposed site grades and improvements; the construction schedule and sequence; and the site geology.

Geotechnical engineers apply their experience with construction methods, subsurface conditions and exploration methods to develop the exploration scope.

The scope of each exploration is unique based on available project and site information. Incomplete project information or constraints on the scope of exploration increases the risk of variations in subsurface conditions not being identified and addressed in the geotechnical report.

S ervicesA re P erformed forS pecific P rojects

Because the scope of each geotechnical exploration is unique, each geotechnical report is unique. Subsurface conditions are explored and recommendations are made for a specific project.

Subsurface information and recommendations may not be adequate for other uses. Changes in a proposed structure location, foundation loads, grades, schedule, etc. may require additional geotechnical exploration, analyses, and consultation. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to determine if additional services are required in response to changes in proposed construction, location, loads, grades, schedule, etc.

Geo-Environmenta lIssues

The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geo-environmental study differ significantly from those used for a geotechnical exploration. Indications of environmental contamination may be encountered incidental to performance of a geotechnical exploration but go unrecognized. Determination of the presence, type or extent of environmental contamination is beyond the scope of a geotechnical exploration.

Geotechnica lRecommenda tionsA re NotFina l

Recommendations are developed based on the geotechnical engineer’s understanding of the proposed construction and professional opinion of site subsurface conditions. Observations and tests must be performed during construction to confirm subsurface conditions exposed by construction excavations are consistent with those assumed in development of recommendations. It is advisable to retain the geotechnical engineer that performed the exploration and developed the geotechnical recommendations to conduct tests and observations during construction. This may reduce the risk that variations in subsurface conditions will not be addressed as recommended in the geotechnical report.

Portion obtained with permission from “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”, ASFE, 2004

© S&ME, Inc. 2010

Appendix I – Site Location Map / Boring Location Plan

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

D ra w in g Pa th : T

:\G

EO

\P ro je ct s\

\2

9_

D

EC

A_

KY

TC

S ec tio n

D ist ric t O ffi ce

_S om er se t, KY

\4 G

EO

\C

AD

\F ig ur es \2

9_

FI

G.

dw g

KENTUCKY FINANCE AND ADMINSTRATION OFFICE

DISTRICT 8 SECTION OFFICE

SOMERSET, KENTUCKY

22380189

9-13-22

1"=2000'VICINITY MAP

0 2000 4000

GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET)

N

PROJECT

LOCATION

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

D ra w in g Pa th : T

:\G

EO

\P ro je ct s\

\2

9_

D

EC

A_

KY

TC

S ec tio n

D ist ric t O ffi ce

_S om er se t, KY

\4 G

EO

\C

AD

\F ig ur es \2

9_

FI

G.

dw g

KENTUCKY FINANCE AND ADMINISTRTATION CABINET

DISTRICT 8 SECTION OFFICE

SOMERSET, KENTUCKY

22380189

9-13-22

1"=100'BORING LOCATION PLAN

0 100 200

GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET)

N

B-1

B-2

B-3

Appendix II – Test Boring Logs

FINE AND COARSE GRAINED SOIL INFORMATION

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

(SANDS AND GRAVELS)

N

0-4

5-10

11-30

31-50

Over 50

Relative Density

Very Loose

Loose

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

PARTICLE SIZE

Boulders

Cobbles

Gravel

Coarse Sand

Medium Sand

Fine Sand

Silts and Clays

Greater than 300 mm (12”)

75 mm—300 mm (3-12”)

4.75 mm—75 mm (3/16-3”)

2 mm—4.74 mm

.425 mm—2 mm

0.075 mm—0.425 mm

Less than 0.075 mm

FINE GRAINED SOILS

(CLAYS AND SILTS)

N

0-2

3-4

5-8

9-15

16-30

Over 30

Consistency

Very Soft

Soft

Firm

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

The STANDARD PENETRATION TEST as defined by ASTM D 1586 is a method to obtain a disturbed soil sample for examination and testing and to obtain relative density and consistency information. A standard 1.4-inch I.D. / 2.0-inch O.D. split barrel sampler is driven three 6-inch increments with a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The hammer can either be of a trip, free-fall design, or actuated by a rope and cathead. The blow counts required to drive the sampler the final two 6-inch increments are added together and designated the N-value defined in the above tables.

ROCK PROPERTIES

RQD

Percent RQD

0-25

25-50

50-75

75-90

90-100

Quality

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

ROCK HARDNESS

Very Hard

Hard

Moderately Hard

Soft

Very Soft

Rock can be broken by heavy hammer blows.

Rock cannot be broken by thumb pressure, but can be broken by moderate hammer blows.

Small pieces can be broken off along sharp edges by considerable thumb pressure; can be broken with light hammer blows.

Rock is coherent but breaks very easily with thumb pressure at sharp edges and crumbles with firm hand pressure.

Rock disintegrates or easily compresses when touched; can be hard to very hard soil.

SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS

N

NMC

LL

PL

PI

PPV

Qu γd

F

Standard Penetration, BPF

Natural Moisture Content, %

Liquid Limit, %

Plastic Limit, %

Plasticity Index, %

Pocket Penetrometer Value, TSF

Unconfined Compressive Strength, TSF

Dry Unit Weight, PCF

Fines Content

TEST BORING LOG LEGEND

KEY

RQD=

x100

REC=

x100

(Rock Quality Designation)

(Recovery) Core Diameter (I.D.)

BQ

NQ

HQ

Inches

1-7/16

1-7/8

2-1/2

Sum of 4” and Longer Rock Pieces Recovered

Length of Core Run

Length of Rock Core Recovered

Length of Core Run

Undisturbed Sample

Standard Penetration Test Sample

Rock Core Sample

DE

PT

H (fe et

NOTES

SOIL UCS=

3.425 KSF

0.2 0.8

8.0

20.0

O rig in /I de n er Re sid uu m

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SPT-1

(12 in)

UD-1

REC-100%

SPT-2

(14 in)

SPT-3

(12 in)

SPT-4

(10 in)

SPT-5

(12 in)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ASPHALT, 2 inches Gravel Base, 6 inches LEAN CLAY (CL), rm, red brown, moist, few limestone fragments

FAT CLAY (CH), rm to s , red, blocky, moist

Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

4-4-3 N = 7

2-2-4 N = 6

3-4-4 N = 8

4-4-6 N = 10

3-2-3 N = 5

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

PROJECT: KYTC Sec on 8 District O ce

S&ME Project No. 22830189

BORING LOG: B-1

Sheet 1 of 1

DATE DRILLED: 08/11/2022

DRILL RIG: CME-55 (Truck)

DRILLER: Tim Frost

HAMMER TYPE: Auto Hammer (140 lb) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight

ELEVATION: 926.2

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.0

CLOSURE: Cu ngs LOGGED BY: Deron Zierer

NOTES:

NORTHING: 3551018 EASTING: 5252180

SAMPLING METHOD: UD, SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD

END OF DRILLING 08/11/2022 not encountered

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

Ver cal Accuracy: Land Survey, Horizontal Accuracy: Land Survey

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plas c Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), AR = Auger Refusal

% Fines

NMC

PL---LL

20 40 60 80

H (fe et

NOTES

SOIL UCS=

3.142 KSF

0.2 0.8

2.8

20.0

O rig in /I de n er Re sid uu m

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SPT-1

(12 in)

UD-1

REC-100%

SPT-2

(10 in)

SPT-3

(11 in)

SPT-4

(11 in)

SPT-5

(12 in)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ASPHALT, 2 inches Gravel Base, 6 inches LEAN CLAY (CL), rm, dark red, moist, few limestone fragments

FAT CLAY (CH), rm to s , red, blocky, moist, some weathered limestone and dolomite fragments

Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

2-2-3 N = 5

3-4-5 N = 9

3-4-4 N = 8

3-4-4 N = 8

5-4-3 N = 7

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

PROJECT: KYTC Sec on 8 District O ce

S&ME Project No. 22830189

BORING LOG: B-2

Sheet 1 of 1

DATE DRILLED: 08/11/2022

DRILL RIG: CME-55 (Truck)

DRILLER: Tim Frost

HAMMER TYPE: Auto Hammer (140 lb) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight

ELEVATION: 927.2

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.0

CLOSURE: Cu ngs LOGGED BY: Deron Zierer

NOTES:

NORTHING: 3551063 EASTING: 5252164

SAMPLING METHOD: SS, UD PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD

END OF DRILLING 08/11/2022 not encountered

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

Ver cal Accuracy: Land Survey, Horizontal Accuracy: Land Survey

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plas c Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), AR = Auger Refusal

% Fines

NMC

H (fe et

NOTES

0.2 0.5

7.8

20.0

O rig in /I de n er Re sid uu m

G

RA

PH

IC

SAMPLE NO.

(RECOVERY)

SPT-1

(12 in)

SPT-2

(12 in)

SPT-3

(12 in)

SPT-4

(10 in)

SPT-5

(10 in)

SPT-6

(10 in)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

ASPHALT, 2 inches Gravel Base, 4 inches LEAN CLAY (CL), rm to s , dark red, moist, few limestone fragments

FAT CLAY (CH), rm to s , red to dark red, blocky, moist, few limestone and dolomite fragments

Borehole terminated at 20.0 feet

BLOW COUNT

DATA

(SPT N-value)

3-3-3 N = 6

3-3-3 N = 6

5-5-4 N = 9

4-5-4 N = 9

4-4-4 N = 8

3-4-3 N = 7

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DATA

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

PROJECT: KYTC Sec on 8 District O ce

S&ME Project No. 22830189

BORING LOG: B-3

Sheet 1 of 1

DATE DRILLED: 08/11/2022

DRILL RIG: CME-55 (Truck)

DRILLER: Tim Frost

HAMMER TYPE: Auto Hammer (140 lb) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Flight

ELEVATION: 926.7

DATUM: NAVD88

BORING DEPTH: 20.0

CLOSURE: Cu ngs LOGGED BY: Deron Zierer

NOTES:

NORTHING: 3551058 EASTING: 5252195

SAMPLING METHOD: SS PROJECT COORDINATE SYSTEM - NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet

GROUNDWATER DATE/TIME DEPTH

(FT) REMARKS

ATD

END OF DRILLING 08/11/2022 not encountered

AFTER DRILLING

AFTER DRILLING

Ver cal Accuracy: Land Survey, Horizontal Accuracy: Land Survey

GROUNDWATER DEPTHS ARE NOT EXACT AND MAY VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE INDICATED. ATD = AT TIME OF DRILLING LL=Liquid Limit, PL = Plas c Limit, NMC = Natural Moisture Content, PPV = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf), PTV = Pocket Torvane (tsf), AR = Auger Refusal

% Fines

NMC

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Operations: The general field procedures employed by S&ME, Inc. are summarized in ASTM D 420 which is entitled "Investigating and

Sampling Soils and Rocks for Engineering Purposes." This recommended practice lists recognized methods for determining soil and rock distribution and ground water conditions. These methods include geophysical and in situ methods as well as borings.

Borings are drilled to obtain subsurface samples using one of several alternate techniques depending upon the subsurface conditions. These techniques are:

a. Continuous 2-1/2 or 3-1/4 inch I.D. hollow stem augers;

b. Wash borings using roller cone or drag bits (mud or water);

c. Continuous flight augers (ASTM D 1425).

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.

The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field test boring record by a field engineer who is on site to direct the drilling operations and log the recovered samples. 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 soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488 and prepares the final boring records that are the basis for all evaluations and recommendations.

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 designating 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. The detailed data collection methods using during this study are discussed on the following pages.

Soil Test Borings: Soil test borings were made at the site at locations shown on the attached Boring Plan. Soil sampling and penetration testing were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586.

The borings were made by mechanically twisting a 5-5/8” outer diameter auger into the soil. At regular intervals, the drilling tools were removed and samples obtained with a standard 1.4 inch I.D., 2 inch O.D., split tube sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot was recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance”.

Representative portions of the samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined to verify the driller's field classifications. Test Boring Records are attached which graphically show the soil descriptions and penetration resistances.

Soil Auger Soundings: Soil auger soundings were made at the site at the locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The soundings were performed by mechanically twisting a steel auger into the soil. However, unlike the soil test borings, a smaller diameter solid stem auger was used and no split-spoon samples were obtained. The driller provided a general description of the soil encountered by observing the soils brought to the surface by the twisting auger. The auger was advanced until refusal materials were encountered and the refusal depth was noted by the driller.

The auger is then withdrawn and the depths to water or caved materials are then measured and recorded by the driller.

Soil auger soundings provide a rapid, economical method of obtaining the approximate bedrock depth, groundwater depth, and general soil conditions at locations where detailed soil testing and sampling is not required.

Water Level Readings: Water table readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the "Test Boring Records".

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 the 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 time of 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 an 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.

Appendix III – Laboratory Test Results

MC LL PL PI

19.0

27.8 p 33.2 75 26 49

21.0 37 16 21

18.4

33.5

35.6 67 30 37

34.2 66 29 37

20.4

20.7

27.9

38.6

Specimen Identification Fines Classification (symbol is based on minus 40 material only when no grain size information is present.)

ID No. Top Depth Symbol Name

8.5

B-1 SPT-2 6

B-1 SPT-4 13.5 CH

B-1 SPT-3

B-1 UD-1 3 CL

B-2 SPT-1 1

B-2 SPT-3 8.5 CH

B-2 SPT-2

B-2 UD-1 3 CH

B-3 SPT-1 1

B-3 SPT-2 3.5

B-3 SPT-3 6

B-3 SPT-4 8.5

INDEX TEST RESULTS

Project Name KYTC Section 8 District Office

Project Number 22830189

Approved by Date Report No. 8/25/2022 15:58

Report Date

0 20 40 60 80 100Liquid Limit

CHCL

ML

CL-ML

MH

P L A S T I C

I N D E X pcf

ASTM D2166

Height to Diameter Ratio:

Type of Sample:

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Intact

1.1 1.9

Rate of Strain (%/min.):

Strain at Failure:

Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu:

Undrained Shear Strength, su:

3/4 Specimen

KSF

KSF

Source of Moisture Sample:

Initial Dry Unit Weight:

Liquid Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Lab Services Manager 8/25/2022

3.425

1.712

Technical Responsibility Signature

References / Comments / Deviations:

Date

Jacob Folsom

4.5%

Position

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

OF COHESIVE SOILS

Client Address: 403 Wapping Street, 1st Floor, Frankfort, KY

Report Date:

B-1

Form No. TR-D2166-01-C

Revision No. : 1LEXb

Revision Date: 09/02/20

S&ME, Inc. - Lexington: 2020 Liberty Road, Suite 105, Lexington, KY 40505 8/24/2022

Project Name: KYTC Section 8 District Office Test Date(s):

Client Name: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Sample Date:

Project No.: 22830189 8/18/2022

8/11/2022Type: UD Location:

Failed Specimen

103.8

Depth (ft.): 3.3 - 3.8

Sample Description: LEAN CLAY (CL), red brown

Initial Water Content: 21.0%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

C o m p re s s iv e S tr e n g th K

S F

Strain, %

Unconfined Compressive Strength

22830189 QU B-1 3.xlsx Page 1 of 1 pcf

ASTM D2166

Height to Diameter Ratio:

Type of Sample:

This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.

Intact

1.1 1.9

Rate of Strain (%/min.):

Strain at Failure:

Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu:

Undrained Shear Strength, su:

3/4 Specimen

KSF

KSF

Source of Moisture Sample:

Initial Dry Unit Weight:

Liquid Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Lab Services Manager 8/25/2022

3.142

1.571

Technical Responsibility Signature

References / Comments / Deviations:

Date

Jacob Folsom

2.2%

Position

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

OF COHESIVE SOILS

Client Address: 403 Wapping Street, 1st Floor, Frankfort, KY

Report Date:

B-2

Form No. TR-D2166-01-C

Revision No. : 1LEXb

Revision Date: 09/02/20

S&ME, Inc. - Lexington: 2020 Liberty Road, Suite 105, Lexington, KY 40505 8/24/2022

Project Name: KYTC Section 8 District Office Test Date(s):

Client Name: Commonwealth of Kentucky

Sample Date:

Project No.: 22830189 8/18/2022

8/11/2022Type: UD Location:

Failed Specimen

84.9

Depth (ft.): 3.5 - 4.0

Sample Description: FAT CLAY (CH), dark red

Initial Water Content: 34.2%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

C o m p re s s iv e S tr e n g th K

S F

Strain, %

Unconfined Compressive Strength

22830189 QU B-2 3.xlsx Page 1 of 1

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

Soil Classification: Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current problems. In our investigations, samples obtained during drilling operations are examined in our laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to consistency (based on number of blows from standard penetration tests), color and texture. These classification descriptions are included on our "Test Boring Records."

The classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative and for detailed soil classification two laboratory tests are necessary: grain size tests and plasticity tests. Using these test results the soil can be classified according to the AASHTO or Unified Classification Systems (ASTM D 2487). Each of these classification systems and the in-place physical soil properties provides an index for estimating the soil's behavior. The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this report.

Compaction Tests: Compaction tests are run on representative soil samples to determine the dry density obtained by a uniform compactive effort at varying moisture contents. The results of the test are used to determine the moisture content and unit weight desired in the field for similar soils. Proper field compaction is necessary to decrease future settlements, increase the shear strength of the soil and decrease the permeability of the soil.

The two most commonly used compaction tests are the Standard Proctor test and the Modified Proctor test. They are performed in accordance with ASTM D 698 and D 1557, respectively. Generally, the Standard Proctor compaction test is run on samples from building or parking areas where small compaction equipment is anticipated. The Modified compaction test is generally performed for heavy structures, highways, and other areas where large compaction equipment is expected. In both tests a representative soil sample is placed in a mold and compacted with a compaction hammer. Both tests have three alternate methods.

Test Method Hammer

Wt./Fall

Mold

Diam.

Run on Material

Finer Than

No. of

Layers

No. of

Blows/Layer

Standard

D 698

A 5.5 lb./12" 4" No. 4 sieve 3 25

B 5.5 lb./12" 4" 3/8" sieve 3 25

C 5.5 lb./12" 6" 3/4" sieve 3 56

Test Method Hammer

Wt./Fall

Mold

Diam.

Run on Material

Finer Than

No. of

Layers

No. of

Blows/Layer

Standard

D 1557

A 10 lb./18" 4" No. 4 sieve 5 25

B 10 lb./18" 4" 3/8" sieve 5 25

C 10 lb./18" 6" 3/4" sieve 5 56

The moisture content and unit weight of each compacted sample is determined. Usually 4 to 5 such tests are run at different moisture contents. Test results are presented in the form of a dry unit weight versus moisture content curve. The compaction method used and any deviations from the recommended procedures are noted in this report.

Atterberg Limits: Portions of the samples are taken for Atterberg Limits testing to determine the plasticity characteristics of the soil. The plasticity index (PI) is the range of moisture content over which the soil deforms as a plastic material. It is bracketed by the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic limit (PL). The liquid limit is the moisture content at which the soil becomes sufficiently "wet" to flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The plastic limit is the lowest moisture content at which the soil is sufficiently plastic to be manually rolled into tiny threads. The liquid limit and plastic limit are determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318.

Moisture Content: The Moisture Content is determined according to ASTM D 2216.

Appendix IV – ACI Floor Design Guide

302.1R-66 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT

The report of ACI Committee 302, “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction (ACI 302.1R-96)” states in section 4.1.5 that “if a vapor barrier or retarder is required due to local conditions, these products should be placed under a minimum of 4 in. (100 mm) of trimable, compactible, granular fill (not sand).” ACI Committee 302 on Construction of Concrete Floors, and Committee 360 on Design of Slabs on Ground have found examples where this approach may have contributed to floor covering problems.

Based on the review of the details of problem installations, it became clear that the fill course above the vapor retarder can take on water from rain, wet-curing, wet-grinding or cut-ting, and cleaning. Unable to drain, the wet or saturated fill provides an additional source of water that contributes to moisture-vapor emission rates from the slab well in excess of the 3 to 5 lb/1000 ft2/24 h (1.46 to 2.44 kg/100 m2/24 h) recommendation of the floor covering manufacturers.

As a result of these experiences, and the difficulty in ade-quately protecting the fill course from water during the con-struction process, caution is advised…