Addendum 2.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

DEPARTMENT FOR FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-147-26

FOR: DJJ - Paving - Campus Wide Lake Cumberland Youth Development Center Monticello, Kentucky

DATE: January 12, 2026

RFB-785-2600000253

ADDENDUM NO. Two (2)

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 attached addendum for all additions, deletions, and/or changes to specifications and/or drawings.

END OF ADDENDUM

Invitation to Bid No. RFB-147-26 For: DJJ - Paving - Campus Wide Lake Cumberland Youth Development Center Monticello, Kentucky

Janis Wilhoite, Statewide Procurement Analyst II Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

RFB-147-26

DJJ-Lake Cumberland YDC Paving and Retaining Wall

Questions and Answers

1. Can CAD drawings for the site work be made available for this project?

Response: CAD files will be provided to the successful bidder. Bidders are to bid the drawings.

2. We are requesting a copy of the geotechnical report titled, "Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Center," conducted by UES, Inc. dated 12/17/24 for use in our preliminary retaining wall design.

Response: The Geotech report is attached to this Addendum

3. Several places on the plans have a 2.5” mill/fill shown while the sheet keynote #2 has

1.5” mill and overlay. Need clarification on depth so that you are comparing apples to apples with their bids.

Response: Detail 4 on sheet CS-501 is for full depth asphalt replacement. Plan sheets CS-101, CS-102, and CS-103 do have a conflict in the note on plan view and the sheet keynote #2.

Mill and Replace Clarifica1on: The pavement shall be milled at 1” and replaced with 1.5” of surface. The contactor shall feather down at sidewalk, stoops, and other pedestrian connec1ons such that the new pavement is not higher than the pedestrian connec1on while also maintaining exis1ng drainage.

4. Regarding the pole and guy wires located near the north end of the retaining wall.

Will the pole and wires need to be removed for construction of the new retaining wall? If so, is the cost of removal/relocation to be paid by the contractor? Thank you for any help you can provide in this matter.

Response: The guy wires will need to be relocated. The contractor will need to work with the local u1lity to adjust the guy wires.

5. Also, is there a more defined detail of the handrail? We can't find any specs on it and applicable types vary wildly. Thank you.

Response: The handrail should be per KYTC Standard Drawing RGX-030 Handrail Type A-1. See a9ached to this addendum.

SAFETY

TEAMWORK

RESPONSIVENESS

INTEGRITY

VALUE

EXCELLENCE

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

LAKE CUMBERLAND JUVENILE DETENTION

CENTER

MONTICELLO, KY

Prepared for:

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

CABINET

Prepared by:

UES

LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY

Date:

DECEMBER 17, 2024

UES Project No:

LX240243

Geotechnical Exploration Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Center | Monticello, Kentucky December 17, 2024 | Project No. LX240243

© 2024, UES i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.0 AREA/SITE INFORMATION

3.1 AREA TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY

3.2 SITE GEOLOGY

3.3 PUBLISHED SITE SOIL CONDITIONS

3.4 OTHER PUBLISHED SITE INFORMATION

4.0 SITE SURFACE OBSERVATIONS

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 SOIL CONDITIONS

5.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

5.3 BEDROCK INFORMATION

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 DISCUSSION-GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

7.1 PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT

7.2 PREVIOUSLY PLACED (OLD) FILL

7.3 SOFT/WET SOIL CONDITIONS

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 NOTES ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appendix

© 2024, UES ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Kentucky Physiographic Map (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 2: Site Geology USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 1965 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 3: Site Topography USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 1954 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 4: Site Topography USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 1978 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 5: Site Topography USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 2022 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 6: Karst Areas Map, KGS (site vicinity indicated by circle)

Figure 7: USDA Soil Survey Map of Project Site (site vicinity outlined in orange)

Figure 8: Aerial photograph, dated March 1998 from Google Earth (site vicinity shown in circle)

Figure 9: Aerial photograph, dated October 2023 from Google Earth (site vicinity shown in circle)

LIST OF PHOTOS

Photo 1: View of wall and observed drainage pipe

Photo 2: View looking west at the existing gabion basket wall

Photo 3: View of cracking observed drainage in the pavement near gabion basket wall

Photo 4: View looking northwest at the gabion basket wall

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Observed Overburden Conditions

© 2024, UES 1

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

LAKE CUMBERLAND JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER

MONTICELLO, KENTUCKY

December 17, 2024 | Project No. LX240243

1.0 SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

We conducted a geotechnical exploration which is summarized in the following report. Our services included a review of the project information provided, conducting a geotechnical exploration that included a site reconnaissance, as well as soil and rock core borings to obtain samples for modeling the subsurface conditions at the subject site, an analysis of the data and information obtained, and providing recommendations for the soil supported portions of the project site as listed in our proposal.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Project information was provided to us via teleconference and follow up email correspondence with Mr.

Roderick Saylor, PE of GRW, Inc. on August 21, 2024. Mr. Barry Bishop, PE of CSI dba UES performed a site visit on August 29, 2024 to observe the conditions on-site.

We understand that the project consists of a pavement resurfacing (milling to full depth reclamation).

Prior to the site visit, Mr. Saylor noted that the gabion basket retaining wall on the northern end of the paved parking lot was showing signs of failures at the Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Center. We were contacted by Mr. Saylor to perform a site visit, and provide a scope for a subsurface exploration of the wall area.

The project site is located at the existing Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Center in Monticello, Kentucky. Please reference the Site Location Plan in the Appendix for further detail.

We understand that the existing gabion basket retaining wall on the northern side of the paved parking lot is showing signs of failure. The wall is approximately 200 feet long, and 12 to 15 feet high (by visual estimation). Small tension cracks were observed in the asphalt pavement bordering the wall, and the guard rails were observed shifting horizontally to the north. Additionally, the wall appears to be sagging in several places. Based on our site visit and research, we believe the parking area overlies a pre-existing natural drainage swale. This swale was later filled in order to level the parking lot area. The drainage swale continues beyond the wall to the north with no obvious signs of failure in the underlying slope. It should also be noted that two drainage pipes were observed penetrating the middle and eastern portions of the gabion basket wall.

If any of the aforementioned information is in error or if the information changes during the course of the project, please contact our office so that we can re-evaluate the new information with respect to our recommendations.

© 2024, UES 2

3.0 AREA/SITE INFORMATION

3.1 AREA TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY

The site is located within the Pennyrile and Eastern Coal Field Physiographic Regions of Kentucky. The

Pennyrile physiographic region of Kentucky stretches from the Land Between the Lakes in the west across the state to the Pottsville Escarpment in the east. It is a Mississippian plateau with a large karst region that includes Mammoth Cave. The eastern Kentucky coal field physiographic region covers the eastern end of the state, stretching from the Appalachian Mountains westward across the Cumberland

Plateau to the Pottsville Escarpment. Published topographic mapping by the United States Geologic

Survey (USGS) indicates the elevations in the site vicinities are approximately 900 to 930 feet. Figure 1 depicts the location of the site with respect to the regional physiography.

3.2 SITE GEOLOGY

A review of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS Geologic Map of the Cumberland City Quadrangle (1965) indicates the project site is located in an area underlain by bedrock belonging to the Fort Payne

Formation.

As mapped, these formations consist of siltstone, shale, and limestone. The limestone is described as being light olive-gray to dark gray reef limestone, medium to coarse grained, thick bedded to thinly crosslaminated, argillaceous, and is interbedded with silty limestone and siltstone.

There are no faults mapped within the project vicinity. The geologic dip near the project site is approximately 1 percent to the southwest. Please reference Figure 2 for further details regarding the site geology.

Figure 1: Kentucky Physiographic Map (site vicinity shown in the circle)

© 2024, UES 3

Topographic research was conducted with the USGS Cumberland City Topographic Maps from 1954, 1978, and 2022 being reviewed. The maps depict the previously mentioned swale in the 1954 and 1978 maps, but showed the area as being flattened out in the 2022 map indicating that earthwork had been performed in the site area. Given the construction of the wall, and our site observations, we believe the site was filled between 1978 and 2022. Pease reference Figures 3 through 5 depicting the relevant portions of the USGS Maps.

Figure 2: Site Geology USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 1965 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 3: Site Topography USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 1954 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

© 2024, UES 4

Figure 4: Site Topography USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 1978 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

Figure 5: Site Topography USGS Cumberland City Quadrangle, dated 2022 (site vicinity shown in the circle)

© 2024, UES 5

As with most of the geology in this portion of Kentucky, Karst (sinkholes, weathered bedrock, caverns, erratic bedrock, etc.) is associated with the site geology. No signs of Karst were observed in our recovered soil samples, rock core, or auger cuttings. Additionally, there were no signs of Karst activity in our site reconnaissance (i.e. – surface depressions. However, Karst activity could still be present even if not indicated by our field activities. The Karst Areas map published by the Kentucky Geological Survey

(KGS) indicates that the project site is in an area with no Karst potential to Karst prone. Figure 6 indicates the likelihood of Karst occurrence.

3.3 PUBLISHED SITE SOIL CONDITIONS

According to the USDA Soil Survey of Wayne County (NRCS website), the soils underlying the site consist of the following series:

CgD—Caneyville-Garmon association, steep

GcF—Garmon-Caneyville association, very steep

Depth to restrictive feature for these soil series are generally listed as ranging from approximately

29 inches to 32 inches;

These soil series are generally listed as being well drained with a depth to water table of greater than 80 inches;

These soil series are listed are generally listed as being very limited with respect to shallow excavations. Particular issues affecting construction include depth to hard bedrock, slope, being too clayey, being dusty, and unstable excavation walls.

The following describes the soil series characteristics and limitations with respect to construction:

Figure 6: Karst Areas Map, KGS (site vicinity indicated by circle)

© 2024, UES 6

Due to the surrounding development, the soil survey information listed above may no longer be useful since the site soils may have been altered. Thus, the soils described above may be on-site but not in their natural condition. Figure 7 shows the soils map from the USDA website

3.4 OTHER PUBLISHED SITE INFORMATION

We have reviewed several available aerial photographs, dated as far back as March 1998. The March

1998 aerial photograph indicates the project site was occupied by the existing Lake Cumberland Juvenile

Detention Center and associated pavement areas. No significant changes were indicated within the project vicinity from 1998 to 2023. Please reference the following Figures 8 and 9 for further details.

Figure 7: USDA Soil Survey Map of Project Site (site vicinity outlined in orange)

Figure 8: Aerial photograph, dated March 1998 from Google Earth (site vicinity shown in circle)

© 2024, UES 7

4.0 SITE SURFACE OBSERVATIONS

Mr. Talal Abaulsoud of UES conducted a site visit, performed a field reconnaissance, logged soil borings and rock coring, and directed drilling operations within the proposed project site on November 14, 2024.

The project site is located at the existing Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Center in Monticello, Kentucky. Specifically, the area of concern is a gabion basket wall on the north side of the paved parking lot. The project area is relatively level but slopes downward to the northeast. Based on our top of boring elevations, there is approximately 1 foot of vertical relief at the top of the wall. Below the wall the drainage swale continues to slope downward to the elevation of the Lake.

No marked utility lines were observed within the project area. The following photos depict the site conditions as they existed at the time of our geotechnical exploration.

Figure 9: Aerial photograph, dated October 2023 from Google Earth (site vicinity shown in circle)

© 2024, UES 8

Photo 1: View of wall and observed drainage pipe Photo 2: View looking west at the existing gabion basket wall

Photo 3: View of cracking observed drainage in the pavement near gabion basket wall

Photo 4: View looking northwest at the gabion basket wall

© 2024, UES 9

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions encountered at each of our soil boring locations are shown on the Boring Logs in the Appendix. It should be noted that our soil borings were sampled according to the procedures presented in the Appendix. The Boring Logs represent our interpretations of the subsurface conditions based on field logs, a visual examination of field samples by an engineer, a visual examination of auger cuttings, and tests (field and laboratory) of the samples collected. The letters in parentheses following the soil descriptions are the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS). It should be noted that the stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent approximate transitions between material types. In-situ stratum changes could occur gradually or at slightly different depths. Water levels shown on the Boring Logs represent the conditions only at the time of our exploration.

5.1 SOIL CONDITIONS

We performed a total of 4 soil test borings near the northern parking lot perimeter on the south side of the guardrail. Refence Table 1 for more details on the encountered subsurface conditions.

Table 1: Observed Overburden Conditions

Strata Thickness Notes

Asphalt and Gravel Approximately 9.0 inches Present in all 4 borings

Fill: Gray Lean Clay, with Gravel and trace of

Sand Approximately 4.1 to 6.1 feet

Present in all borings except

B-3

Fill: Reddish Brown Lean Clay, with Gravel and trace of Sand Approximately 4.5 to 8.0 feet

Present in all borings except

B-4

Fill: Brown Lean Clay, with organics (i.e. – roots, a tree), observed as wet Approximately 5.3 to 8.0 feet

Present in all borings

Note that Boring B-3 was terminated due to a tree in the Old Fill.

Residual Soils: Brown Fat Clay, observed as wet At least 8.2 feet Present in boring B-4

© 2024, UES 10

5.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was not observed in any of our borings upon completion of soil augering. Please note a final water level reading was not taken in our core holes since water was used to cool the rock core bit.

All our borings were immediately backfilled with auger cuttings upon the completion of soil augering (due to safety concerns).

Water conditions that usually affect construction and performance of projects consist of trapped/perched water zones which occur in various areas in the soil mass, at or near the bedrock bedding planes, or at or near the fill/soil/rock interface. Perched water sources are often not linked to the more continuous relatively stable groundwater table that typically occurs at greater depths. Finally, groundwater levels may also be dependent upon recent rainfall activity and surface and subsurface drainage patterns in the area

5.3 BEDROCK INFORMATION

Auger refusal was encountered in all four (4 of our borings at depths ranging from 13.5 (Boring B-3) to

23.2 feet (Boring B-4). Note that at Boring B-103, we encountered a false auger refusal at a depth of 13.5 feet due to the presence of what believe to be a tree buried in the old fill.

Rock coring was performed at Borings B-2 and B-4. The recovered rock cores generally consisted of dark gray, thinly bedded siltstone. The rock cores had recoveries of 93 and 97 percent and Rock Quality

Designation (RQD) values were 78 and 88 percent (respectively), which is considered good rock quality.

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Due to the nature of our recovered samples (heterogenous fill materials) and the limited value of potential lab test results, laboratory tests were not performed on the soil samples at the discretion of our engineers.

7.0 DISCUSSION-GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

Based on our experience with similar projects and the conditions observed during our subsurface exploration, we believe the site can be adapted for the proposed parking lot repairs. However, this site will be more difficult (and more expensive) to develop when compared to some sites due to the deep uncontrolled fill behind the wall and under the paved parking area. The primary geotechnical concerns are:

• Previous Site Development;

• Previously Placed (Old) Fill;

• Soft/Wet Soil Conditions.

The following sections discuss each issue. However, recommendations to address these issues are contained in later sections of the report.

7.1 PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT

Several existing structures, as well as multiple exposed utility connections, were located around the existing parking area. These structures included a basketball court/gym, and various utility connections

© 2024, UES 11

such as sewer and electrical lines. Although there are no buildings within the existing parking area, the proximity of these existing structures suggests that old fill or other deleterious materials may be present.

This could include root material, old foundations, wells, cisterns, septic tanks/fields, or other underground structures. It is recommended that the project budget include a contingency for the removal and remediation of any encountered underground structures or hazardous materials.

7.2 PREVIOUSLY PLACED (OLD) FILL

Fill material was encountered in all the borings with an approximate depth ranging from at least 13.5 to

18.4 feet. The encountered fill consisted of gray, to reddish brown, to brown lean clay with gravel, some sand, and organics including roots. Note that a possible buried tree was observed at 13.5 feet in boring B-3. Fills consisting of heterogenous materials including construction debris, organic materials such as limbs and potentially entire trees that which are then placed in an uncontrolled manner have proven to be very problematic. The poorly sorted soils, debris and organic components can contribute to instability, as they may decompose over time, further exacerbating differential settling and potentially leading to a loss of strength in the fill. The problems generally arise not from general settlement, but from erratic differential settling of the fill. The settlement of large masses is dependent upon several factors such as fill thickness, degree of compaction, fill contents, and age of the fill mass. Also, fills tend to settle linearly with thickness.

7.3 SOFT/WET SOIL CONDITIONS

Moist to wet residual, inconsistent soils were found in our borings. Generally, the soils were soft to firm in the clayey horizon with several “Weight of Hammer" observations within the Standard Penetration

Testing (SPT) blow counts. These soils will provide inconsistent support. These soils have the potential to compress if they are within the zone of influence of the retaining wall, possibly causing differential settlement and pavement cracking.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this exploration is to give recommendations for remedial alternatives for the failures in the Gabion Basket Wall located along the northern perimeter of the existing paved parking area of the facility. As previously discussed, we performed a total of 4 borings near the northern parking lot perimeter on the south side of the guardrail. Fill material was encountered in all the borings with an approximate depth ranging from at least 13.5 to 18.4 feet. The encountered fill consisted of gray, to reddish brown, to brown lean clay with gravel, some sand, and organics including roots. Note that, based on our field results, a possible buried tree was observed beginning at a depth of about 13.5 feet in Boring B-

3. Additionally, interviews with facility personnel reported that trees, roots, and void spaces were observed in the backfill during utility construction in the parking lot area. While UES personnel did not observe the utility trenches, the reported observations are consistent with our research and observations.

The observed previously placed fill is NOT a suitable backfill for behind the wall. We believe that given the composition of the previously placed fill underlying the parking lot area that any remedial efforts made on the wall would likely only last temporarily, and future failures would be likely. Additionally, we believe that given the fill composition, that future failures to the planned new pavements would be likely as well.

© 2024, UES 12

We recommend the complete removal of the previously placed fill. Note that this fill is deep, and this will have a big impact on facility operations and project budgets. Note that underpinning of the gymnasium foundations may be necessary due to the fill removal in that area. UES should be contracted to test, and document the earthwork as controlled fill under the pavement areas, as well as behind the wall. Lastly, once the earthwork is completed in this area, we recommend additional geotechnical analyses for future wall construction.

9.0 NOTES ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that this complete report be provided to the various design team members, the contractors and the project Owner. Potential contractors should be informed of this report in the

"Instructions to Bidders" section of the bid documents. A geotechnical exploration, such as the one we performed, uses widely spaced borings to attempt to model the subsurface conditions at the site. Because no exploration contains complete data or a complete model, there is always a possibility that conditions between borings will be different from those at specific boring locations. Thus, it is possible that some subsurface conditions will not be as anticipated by the project team or contractor. If this report is included or referenced in the actual contract documents, it shall be explicitly understood that this report is for informational purposes only. UES shall not be responsible for the opinions of, or conclusions drawn by, others.

It has been our experience that the construction process often disturbs soil conditions and this process, no matter how much experience we use to anticipate construction methodology, is not completely predictable. Therefore, changes or modifications to our recommendations are likely needed due to these possible variances. Experienced UES geotechnical personnel should be used to observe and document the construction procedures, and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated conditions and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team along with timely recommendations to solve the problems created. We recommend that the Owner retain UES to provide this service based upon our familiarity with the project, the subsurface conditions and the intent of our recommendations.

This report is based on the supplied project information, the subsurface conditions observed at the time of the report, and our experience with similar conditions. As such, it cannot be applied to other project sites, types, or combinations thereof. If the Project Information section in this report contains incorrect information or if additional information is available, you should convey the correct or additional information to us and retain us to review our recommendations. Our recommendations may then require modification.

No section or portion of this report (including Appendix information) can be used as a stand alone article to make distinct changes or assumptions. The entire report and Appendix should be used together as one resource.

While this report deals with samples of subsurface materials and some comments on water conditions at the site, no assessment of site environmental conditions or the presence of contaminants were performed.

We wish to remind you that our exploration services include storing the soil and rock core samples collected and making them available for inspection for 30 days. The soil and rock core samples are then

© 2024, UES 13

discarded unless you request otherwise. Please inform us if you wish to keep any of the obtained samples.

December 17, 2024 | Project No. LX240243

© 2024 UES

APPENDIX

Site Location Plan

Boring Location Plan

Key to Symbols and Descriptions

Boring Logs

Field Testing Procedures

Summary of Lab Testing Table(s) and Lab Testing Sheets

Laboratory Testing Procedures

Drawing No:Scale: Not To Scale

BB

TA

Date:

Project No: Drawn By:

Checked By:

UES

858 Contract Street Lexington, Kentucky 40505

859.309.6021 Office|888.792.3121 Fax 12/16/2024

LX240243

SLP - 1

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Lake Cumberland DJJ Monticello, KY

Site Location Plan adapted from USGS Monticello, KY Topographic Quadrangle map, with further adaptation by CSI personnel.

This drawing is being furnished for this specific project only. Any party accepting this document does so in confidence and agrees that it shall not be duplicated in whole or in part, nor disclosed to others without the consent of Consulting Services Incorporated of Kentucky.

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

SITE LOCATION

N

© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TMAP MOBILITY Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2024 TomTom © 2024 Zenrin

B-104 B-103

B-102

B-101

Drawing No:Scale: Not To Scale

BB

TA

Date:

Project No: Drawn By:

Checked By:

UES

858 Contract Street Lexington, Kentucky 40505

859.309.6021 Office|888.792.3121 Fax 12/16/2024

LX240243

BLP - 1

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Lake Cumberland DJJ Lake Cumberland, Kentucky

Boring Location Plan adapted from provided Site Plan, dated November 14, 2024, and aerial imagery with further adaptation by CSI personnel.

This drawing is being furnished for this specific project only. Any party accepting this document does so in confidence and agrees that it shall not be duplicated in whole or in part, nor disclosed to others without the consent of Consulting Services Incorporated of Kentucky.

FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY

LEGEND

N

BORING LOCATIONSB-XXX

Geotechnical Boring Information Sheet

Sample Type Symbols Definitions

Splitspoon (SPT)

Shelby Tube

Grab

Auger Cuttings

Rock Core

Surface Symbols Topsoil

Asphalt

Concrete

Lean Clay

Fat Clay

Glacial Till

Sandy Clay

Silt

Elastic Silt

Lean Clay to Fat Clay

Gravelly Clay

Sandy Silt

Gravelly Silt

Sand

Gravel

Fill

Limestone

Sandstone

Shale/Siltstone

Weathered Rock

Samples Strength Descriptors Cohesive Soils: N

Very Soft 0-1 Soft 2-4 Firm 5-8 Stiff 9-15 Very Stiff 16-30 Hard 31+ Non-cohesive Soils:

Very Loose 0-4 Loose 5-10 Firm 11-20 Very Firm 21-30 Dense 30-50 Very Dense 51+

SPT-"Splitspoon" or standard penetration test. Blow counts are number of drops required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30 inches to drive the sampler 6 inches.

N-value is the addition of the last two intervals of the 18-inch sample.

Shelby tubes are often called "undisturbed samples". They are directly pushed into the ground, twisted, allowed to rest for a small period of time and then pulled out of the ground. Tops and bottoms are cleaned and then sealed.

Sample classification is done in general accordance with ASTM D2487 and 2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as a general guide.

Soil moisture descriptions are based on the recovered sample observations. The descriptors are dry, slightly moist, moist, very moist and wet. These are typically based on relative estimates of the moisture condition of a visual estimation of the soils optimum moisture content (EOMC). Dry is almost in a "dusty" condition usually 6 or more percent below EOMC. Slightly moist is from about 6 to 2 percent below EOMC at a point at which the soil color does not readily change with the addition of water. Moist is usually 2 percent below to 2 percent above EOMC and the point at which the soil will tend to begin forming "balls" under some pressure in the hand. Very moist is usually from about 2 percent to 6 percent above EOMC and also the point at which it's often considered "muddy". Wet soil is usually 6 or more percent above EOMC and often contains free water or the soil is in a saturated state.

Silt or Clay is defined at material finer than a standard #200 US sieve (<0.075mm) Sand is defined as material between the size of #200 sieve up to #4 sieve. Gravel is from #4 size sieve material to 3". Cobbles are from 3" to 12". Boulders are over 12".

Rock hardness is classified as follows:

Very Soft: Easily broken by hand pressure

Soft: Ends can be broken by hand pressure; easily broken with hammer

Medium: Ends easily broken with hammer; middle requires moderate blow

Hard: Ends require moderate hammer blow; middle requires several blows

Very Hard: Many blows with a hammer required to break core

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is defined as total combined length of 4" or longer pieces of core divided by the total core run length; defined in percentage.

Water or cave-in observed in borings is at completion of drilling each boring unless otherwise noted.

Strata lengths shown on borings represents a rough estimate. Transition may be more abrupt or gradual. Soil borings are representative of that estimated location at that time and are based on recovered samples. Conditions may be different between borings and between sample intervals. Boring information is not to be considered stand alone but should be taken in context with comments and information in the geotechnical report and the means by which the borings are logged, sampled and drilled.

ASPHALT - 3 inches GRAVEL - 6 inches

FILL - Sampled as FIRM to SOFT, gray clay, with gravel and sand

FILL - Sampled as SOFT, reddish-brown clay, with gravel fragments, moist

FILL - Sampled as SOFT, gray clay, with roots and weathered rock

Auger Refusal at 16.3 feet

4-6-5-3 (11)

3-1-1-1 (2)

1-1-1-1 (2)

1-2-1-1 (3)

1-1-1-1 (2)

1-1-2-1 (3)

2-50/3"

Dry upon completion of soil augering

Water observed on tools from 3' to 5'

LX240243

Project Number: LX240243 Name: Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Client: Commonwealth of Kentucky Location: Monticello, Kentucky Logged By: T. Abualsoud

B-101BORING:

BORING LOG

B-101 page 1 of 1

Left Photo: Photo of Approximate Boring Location Right Photo: Photo of Boring

Elev.

(ft)

Contractor: Strata Group Drill Rig: Mobile B-51 Method: SFA Hole Size (in): 4

*Elevations were determined using Real Time Kinematic Differential GPS referencing the KYCORS network.

Weather: Overcast, 50's *Elevation (ft): 922.5 Date Started: 11/14/24 Date Completed: 11/14/24 Checked By: B. Bishop, PE.

Depth (ft)

Symbol Description Blow

Counts (N Value) Re co v.

(i

n) PI

W C

LL

#2

W at er

Le ve l

PL Remarks

UES

858 Contract Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40505 Phone: 859.309.6021

Fax: 888.792.3121

FILL - Sampled as STIFF, gray clay, with gravel and trace sand, moist

FILL - Sampled as SOFT, reddish-brown clay, with organics and roots, moist

FILL - Sampled as STIFF to FIRM, brown clay, with weathered rock fragments, moist

Auger Refusal at 18.4 feet Begin Coring at 18.4 feet

SILTSTONE - very fine grained, dark gray

Coring Terminated at 23.4 feet

6-6-4-3 (10)

5-6-4-3 (10)

3-2-2-3 (4)

4-2-1-1 (3)

WH-2-1-1

(3)

1-2-1-3 (3)

2-2-9-3 (11)

4-2-3-6 (5)

3-3-50/5"

REC (%) - 93

RQD (%) - 78

Dry upon completion of soil augering

WH - Weight of Hammer

No core water loss observed

LX240243

Project Number: LX240243 Name: Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Client: Commonwealth of Kentucky Location: Monticello, Kentucky Logged By: T. Abualsoud

B-102BORING:

BORING LOG

B-102 page 1 of 1

Left Photo: Photo of Approximate Boring Location Right Photo: Photo of Boring

Elev.

(ft)

Contractor: Strata Group Drill Rig: Mobile B-51 Method: SFA Hole Size (in): 4

*Elevations were determined using Real Time Kinematic Differential GPS referencing the KYCORS network.

Weather: Overcast, 50's *Elevation (ft): 921.4 Date Started: 11/14/24 Date Completed: 11/14/24 Checked By: B. Bishop, PE.

Depth (ft)

Symbol Description Blow

Counts (N Value) Re co v.

(i

n) PI

W C

LL

#2

W at er

Le ve l

PL Remarks

UES

858 Contract Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40505

FILL - Sampled as STIFF to FIRM, reddish-brown clay, with gravel and trace sand, moist

FILL - Sampled as SOFT to FIRM, brown clay, with weathered rock fragments, moist

Auger Refusal at 13.5 feet

7-6-4-3 (10)

1-2-4-2 (6)

3-4-4-3 (8)

1-1-1-1 (2)

2-2-5-7 (7)

50/2"

Dry upon completion of soil augering

LX240243

Project Number: LX240243 Name: Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Client: Commonwealth of Kentucky Location: Monticello, Kentucky Logged By: T. Abualsoud

B-103BORING:

BORING LOG

B-103 page 1 of 1

Left Photo: Photo of Approximate Boring Location Right Photo: Photo of Boring

Elev.

(ft)

Contractor: Strata Group Drill Rig: Mobile B-51 Method: SFA Hole Size (in): 4

*Elevations were determined using Real Time Kinematic Differential GPS referencing the KYCORS network.

Weather: Overcast, 50's *Elevation (ft): 921.4 Date Started: 11/14/24 Date Completed: 11/14/24 Checked By: B. Bishop, PE.

Depth (ft)

Symbol Description Blow

Counts (N Value) Re co v.

(i

n) PI

W C

LL

#2

W at er

Le ve l

PL Remarks

UES

858 Contract Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40505

FILL - Sampled as FIRM to SOFT, gray clay, with gravel, and trace sand, moist

FILL - Sampled as SOFT to STIFF to VERY STIFF, brown clay, with organics (roots), wet to moist

FAT CLAY (CH) - STIFF to VERY STIFF to FIRM, light brown, very wet to moist

Auger Refusal at 23.2 feet Begin Coring at 23.2 feet

SILTSTONE - dark gray, very fine grained

Coring Terminated at 28.2 feet

5-4-4-5 (8)

5-3-3-2 (6)

4-2-2-1 (4)

3-1-1-1 (2)

1-1-2-2 (3)

3-5-9-18 (14)

3-11-13-12 (24)

2-3-6-6 (9)

3-7-10-10 (17)

3-2-3-2 (5)

10-50/4"

REC (%) - 97

RQD (%) - 88

Dry upon completion of soil augering

No core water loss observed

LX240243

Project Number: LX240243 Name: Lake Cumberland Juvenile Detention Client: Commonwealth of Kentucky Location: Monticello, Kentucky Logged By: T. Abualsoud

B-104BORING:

BORING LOG

B-104 page 1 of 1

Left Photo: Photo of Approximate Boring Location Right Photo: Photo of Boring

Elev.

(ft)

Contractor: Strata Group Drill Rig: Mobile B-51 Method: SFA Hole Size (in): 4

*Elevations were determined using Real Time Kinematic Differential GPS referencing the KYCORS network.

Weather: Overcast, 50's *Elevation (ft): 921.8 Date Started: 11/14/24 Date Completed: 11/14/24 Checked By: B. Bishop, PE.

Depth (ft)

Symbol Description Blow

Counts (N Value) Re co v.

(i

n) PI

W C

LL

#2

W at er

Le ve l

PL Remarks

UES

858 Contract Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40505

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Operations: The general field procedures employed by CSI 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 the chief 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 soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488 and prepares the final boring records, which 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 hollow stem steel auger into the soil. At regular intervals, the drilling tools were removed and soil 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". The penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil strength and foundation supporting capability.

Representative portions of the soil 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.

Core Drilling: Refusal materials are materials that cannot be penetrated with the soil drilling methods employed.

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.

Prior to coring, casing is set in the drilled hole through the overburden soils, if necessary, to keep the hole from caving. Refusal materials are then cored according to ASTM D 2113 using a diamond-studded bit fastened 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. Core samples of the material penetrated are protected and retained in the swivel-mounted inner tube. Upon completion of each drill run, the core barrel is brought to the surface, the core recovered is measured, the samples are removed and the core is placed in boxes for storage.

The core samples are returned to our laboratory where the refusal material is identified and the percent core recovery and rock quality designation is determined by a soils engineer or geologist. The percent core recovery is the ratio of the sample length obtained to the depth drilled, expressed as a percent. The rock quality designation (RQD) is obtained by summing up the length of core recovered, including only the pieces of core which are four inches or longer, and dividing by the total length drilled. The percent core recovery and RQD are related to soundness and continuity of the refusal material. Refusal material descriptions, recoveries, and RQDs are shown on the "Test Boring Records".

Hand Auger Borings and Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing: Hand auger borings are performed manually by CSI field personnel. This consists of manually twisting hand auger tools into the subsurface and extracting “grab” or baggie samples at intervals determined by the project engineer. At the sample intervals, dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing is performed. This testing involves the manual raising and dropping of a 20-pound hammer, 18 inches. This “driver” head drives a solid-13⁄4 inch diameter cone into the ground. DCP “counts” are the number of drops it takes for the hammer to drive three 13⁄4 inch increments, recorded as X-Y-Z values.

Test Pits: Test pits are excavated by the equipment available, often a backhoe or trackhoe. The dimensions of the test pits are based on the equipment used and the power capacity of the equipment. Samples are taken from the spoils of typical buckets of the excavator and sealed in jars or “Ziploc” baggies. Dynamic Cone Penetration or hand probe testing is often performed in the upper few feet as OSHA standards allow. Refusal is deemed as the lack of advancement of the equipment with reasonable to full machine effort.

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.

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

Typical changes that can erode 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 parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.

To help prevent costly problems,…