Addendum No 1.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

DEPARTMENT FOR FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-26-25

FOR: Clay Co New District 11 Office KY Transportation Cabinet Manchester, Kentucky

DATE: July 22, 2024

RFB-785-2500000010

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-26-25 For: Clay Co New District 11 Office KY Transportation Cabinet

Kristi Sharp, Statewide Procurement Manager Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

KYTC – Clay County District Office ADDENDUM ONE DECA # 609-C91E-Z001-A26 July 22, 2024

RFB 26-25

THJA 2310 Page 1 of 2

ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE

The Contractor shall conform to the following changes as same shall become binding upon the Contract.

GENERAL

ITEM 1 SPECIFICATION SECTION 003100 - AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

1. For reference only, see attached Geotechnical Report prepared by CSI dated November 15, 2023.

2. For reference only, see attached Geotechnical Report prepared by American Engineers dated November 2022.

SITE

ITEM 2 An Autocad .dwg file of drawing sheet C-3.00 Grading & Drainage Plan will be made available upon request. Contractors must complete the attached Electronic File Disclaimer and email the completed form to chris@carmansite.com.

ARCHITECTURAL

ITEM 3 SPECIFICATION SECTION 074113 - METAL ROOF PANELS

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. Metal Panel Systems

2. Pac-Clad

3. Metal Roofing Systems, Inc.

4. IMETCO

ITEM 4 SPECIFICATION SECTION 077123 – MANUFACTURED GUTTERS

AND DOWNSPOUTS

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. Metal Panel Systems

ITEM 5 SPECIFICATION SECTION 081214 – STANDARD HOLLOW METAL FRAMES

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. Metal Products, Inc.

2. De La Fontaine

ITEM 6 SPECIFICATION SECTION 081314 – STANDARD HOLLOW METAL DOORS

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. Metal Products, Inc.

2. De La Fontaine

KYTC – Clay County District Office ADDENDUM ONE DECA # 609-C91E-Z001-A26 July 22, 2024

RFB 26-25

THJA 2310 Page 2 of 2

ITEM 7 SPECIFICATION SECTION 084113 – ALUMINUM FRAMED ENTRANCES

AND STOREFRONT

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. YKK AP America

ITEM 8 SPECIFICATION SECTION 084413 – GLAZED ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALLS

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. YKK AP America

ITEM 9 SPECIFICATION SECTION 085113 – ALUMINUM WINDOWS

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. YKK AP America

ITEM 10 SPECIFICATION SECTION 101400 and 101426 – BUILDING SIGNAGE

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. FASTSIGNS

ITEM 11 SPECIFICATION SECTION 123200 – MANUFACTURED CASEWORK

Provided the products meet the specified requirements, add to the list of acceptable manufacturers the following:

1. Morgan Smith Industries

ITEM 12 DRAWING A-4.11

Reference Rod and Shelf Detail 7/A-4.11. Provide rod and shelf in storage closets 101B, 201G and 203P.

Attachments:

Geotechnical Report prepared by CSI dated November 15, 2023 Geotechnical Report prepared by American Engineers dated November 2022 Electronic File Disclaimer Form

END OF ADDENDUM ONE

ELECTRONIC FILE DISCLAIMER

Documents contained in these electronic files are the property and instruments of service of CARMAN and are subject to a copyright held by CARMAN. For valuable consideration, which is hereby acknowledged, upon accepting these electronic files, the contractor agrees to fully indemnify, defend, and hold CARMAN, Tate Hill Jacobs Architects, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky Finance and Administration Department for Facilities and Support Services Division of Engineering and Contract Administration, its officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees fully harmless from any and all loss, cost, expense or fees (including actual attorneys' fees, expert witness fees or other claim-related costs or disbursements) in any way arising from or in connection with any unauthorized reuse, revision or modification of any CARMAN instrument of service or other document contained in these electronic files. Contractor further agrees to fully compensate CARMAN for the reasonable value of all time incurred by any CARMAN employee in responding to or defending any such claim, demand action or cause of action. This indemnification agreement and any disputes or controversies arising in connection with this indemnification agreement shall be governed and determined solely by the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Further, these documents are for information purposes only and are not to be used as a basis for construction bids to or for the KY Transportation Cabinet, Clay County New District 11 Office. Construction bids are to be based solely on plans, specifications, and addenda distributed by Lynn Imaging on behalf of Finance and Administration Department for Facilities and Support Services Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

Disk and Disclaimer Accepted By: _________________________________________________________

Date: _______________Representing: _______________________________________________________

Project: Clay Co. New District 11 Office, KY Transportation Cabinet

E-mail Address: ___________________________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________

Report of Geotechnical Exploration

KYTC District Office Manchester

CSI Project No. LX230212

Prepared for :

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Finance and Administration Cabinet

November 15, 2023

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

1 SCOPE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

2 PROVIDED INFORMATION

3 AREA/SITE INFORMATION

3A SITE GEOLOGY

3B MINE MAP REVIEW

3C OTHER PUBLISHED SITE INFORMATION

FINDINGS

4 SITE SURFACE OBSERVATIONS

5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5A SOIL CONDITIONS

5B GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

5C BEDROCK INFORMATION

GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6 DISCUSSION-GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

6A PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (MINE SPOIL)

6B SANDY SOILS

6C VARYING DEPTH TO BEDROCK

6D COBBLES AND BOULDERS

7 CONSTRUCTION APPROACH OPTIONS

8 EARTHWORK

8A SITE PREPARATION (WORK PRIOR TO FILLING)

8B NEW FILL OPERATIONS

8C BACKFILL OPERATIONS (FOUNDATION WALLS, UTILITIES, ETC.)

8D GENERAL NOTES

9 SITE DRAINAGE

10 FOUNDATIONS

10A DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS

10B DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS - CONSTRUCTION NOTES

11 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

12 STRUCTURAL FLOOR SLAB

13 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

13A ASPHALT PAVEMENT

13B RIGID PAVEMENT (CONCRETE)

14 NOTES ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21

APPENDICES, FIGURES, PHOTOS AND TABLES

APPENDICES: Site Location Plan

Boring Location Plan

Keys to Symbols and Descriptions

Boring Logs

Field Testing Procedures

List of Figures

Figure 1. Kentucky Physiographic Map 2

Figure 2. Site Geology 3

Figure 3. Mine Works Map 4

Figure 4. Site Aerial dated March 1995 5

Figure 5. Site Aerial dated June 2004 5

Figure 6. Site Aerial dated September 2006 6

Figure 7. Site Aerial dated October 2008 6

Figure 8. Site Aerial dated June 2014 7

Figure 9. Site Aerial dated October 2022 7

List of Photos

Photos 1-2 8

Photo 3 9

Photos 4-5 13

List of Tables

Table 1. General Overburden Conditions Observed 10

Table 2. Bedrock Conditions Observed 12

Table 3. Light Duty Asphalt Pavement Section 20

Table 4. Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement Section 21

INTRODUCTION

1 SCOPE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

As we proposed, we conducted a geotechnical exploration which is summarized in the following report.

Our services included a review of the project information provided, conducting a subsurface exploration that utilized soil borings and rock coring to obtain samples for modeling the soil and bedrock conditions at the subject site, an analysis of the data and information obtained and providing recommendations for the soil or bedrock supported portions of the project.

2 PROVIDED INFORMATION

Project information was provided to us via email correspondence from Mr. Dan Kubican, PE of Brown & Kubican Structural Engineers dated August 28, 2023. Mr. Kubican’s e-mail contained a Request for Proposal - Geotechnical Engineering Services (6 pages) which included a layout of the building/ pavement areas and the proposed boring locations. A previous preliminary geotechnical report for this site (prepared by American Engineers) dated November 30, 2022 was also included in Mr. Kubican’s e-mail.

The project site is located south of the intersection of the Hal Rogers Parkway (KY 9006) and KY 80 near Manchester, Kentucky. Specifically, the project site is located along the west side of KY 80 in an area that has been previously graded. Please reference our Site Location Plan in the Appendix for further details. This area currently exists as a grassy to bare, gently sloping field sitting well above KY 80.

One new building and the associated pavement areas (parking and drive lanes) are proposed for this site. Specifically, the new building is located in the crotch of a hollow near the southwestern corner of this site. The new building is to be one-story with a partial mechanical mezzanine. The building is to be light framed load bearing metal stud or structural steel frame with a brick veneer.

We have assumed the following structural loading information based on our experience with similar projects using similar types of construction:

• Foundation and building loading conditions:

• Maximum column loads of 175 kips;

• Maximum continuous foundation load of 2.5 klf (if any);

• Floor slab live load of 100 psf.

If any of this information is incorrect, please let us know so we can reassess our scope of services needed and provide best fits recommendations for the project.

3 AREA/SITE INFORMATION

The site is located in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Fields Physiographic Region of Kentucky. This area consists of forested hills and V-shaped valleys. Figure 1 shows the location of the site with respect to

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 1 22 the regional physiography. Published topographic mapping by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicates the elevations in the site vicinity range from 900 feet to 1,300 feet.

3A SITE GEOLOGY

The site is mapped in the southern portion of the USGS Geologic Map of the Manchester Quadrangle, Kentucky (dated 1964). This Quadrangle indicate the project site is located in an area underlain by the Breathitt Formation of Pennsylvanian aged rock deposits.

As mapped, the Breathitt Formation is described as being comprised of sandstone, shale, and siltstone.

The sandstone is described as being buff to light gray. The sandstone is fine grained, and comes in thin to medium beds, and is cross-beaded in part. It forms steep slopes generally, but forms cliffs where well cemented. The shale and siltstone are described as light to dark gray and weather buff to tan. They form steep slopes and rounded hilltops, and contain a few sandstone layers.

The Manchester coal seam is indicated on the geologic mapping at or below the elevations of the site area. It is mapped as being 12 to 40 inches thick. The outcrop is mapped at 900 to 920 feet near the site area. It is also known as the Horse Creek coal bed and possibly equivalent to the Lily coal bed (Huddle and others, 1963). It was being mined by several underground mines, one strip mine, and one auger mine during the spring of 1963. It has been extensively strip mined in the southern two-thirds of the quadrangle. While the total range of thickness is 12 to 40 inches, the thickness of the coal bed averaged 32 inches where it was being mined, but as little as 15 inches of coal was mined in the strip mines along Grays Fork. There are mine adits depicted within a mile to the north of the project site on the Geologic Quadrangle.

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

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 2 22

Karst activity (i.e. – sinkholes, caves, underground streams, etc.), or other geologic hazards are not commonly associated with the Breathitt Formation. The geologic dip at the project site is about 1 percent to the north. Figure 2 shows the USGS geologic mapping in the site vicinity.

3B MINE MAP REVIEW

We reviewed publicly available maps from the Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System through their web site www.minemaps.ky.gov. It should be noted that stored underground mining maps were destroyed in a fire at the Department of Mines and Minerals map room in 1948. Although most of the maps were able to be retrieved, not all maps were recovered.

Based on our review of public records, no deep mining activities are mapped within or around the site.

Strip mining activities were observed north and east of the project the site, but at elevations above the project site. Additionally, our cursory mine map research did not indicate the presence of any deep mines directly below the project site. However, the Manchester Coal Seam is mapped below the project site.

Thus, we believe that there is a risk of deep mine works activity beneath the project site. We believe that the hollow fill was placed between 20 and 30 years ago.

Our review of the USGS Manchester Topographic Quadrangle Map revealed the following information:

• Strip mining has occurred to the north and east of the project site;

• Deep mine adits (mine openings) are located to the north of the project site (less than 1 mile away).

Figure 2. Site mapped in the northern portion of the USGS Geologic Map of the Manchester Quadrangle, Kentucky (dated 1964). Site vicinity shown by marker.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 3 22 http://www.minemaps.ky.gov

Figure 3 depicts the researched mine works map of the project location.

3C OTHER PUBLISHED SITE INFORMATION

We have reviewed available aerial photographs, dated as far back as March 1995. Between March 1995 and June 2004, the project area existed as a drainage swale that was filled. The nose of a ridge directly to the north of the project site area was removed. Some grading and smoothing occurred between June 2004 and September 2006. Additional removal of the ridge was depicted between September 2006 and October 2008 where a highwall currently exists. The project site appears to be relatively unchanged from the October 2008 photograph. The earlier photographs are of poor quality, thus minor details cannot be easily determined. Please reference the following aerial photographs for details.

THIS SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Figure 3. Mine Works Map (Site Vicinity Indicated in the Circle)

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 4 22

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 5 22

Figure 4: Aerial photograph dated March 1995 from Google Earth

(site is located near pin)

Figure 5: Aerial photograph dated June 2004 from minemaps.ky.gov

(site is located near pin)

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 6 22

Figure 6: Aerial photograph dated September 2006 from Google Earth

(site is located near pin)

Figure 7: Aerial photograph dated October 2008 from Google Earth

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 7 22

Figure 8: Aerial photograph dated June 2014 from Google Earth

(site is located near pin)

Figure 9: Aerial photograph dated October 2022 from Google Earth

FINDINGS

4 SITE SURFACE OBSERVATIONS

A site reconnaissance and soil borings were conducted by Mr. Barry Bishop, PE, of CSI from October 10 through 12, 2023. The project site is located south of the intersection of the Hal Rogers Parkway (KY 9006) and KY 80 near Manchester, Kentucky. The site lies in an area where extensive earthwork has been performed. From supplied information, and our own research, we believe that the area occupied by the proposed structure has received up to 50 feet of fill. We believe the fill becomes deeper moving to the west towards KY 80.

The site ground cover consisted of mostly of sparse vegetation with ankle to knee high vegetation as well as bare spots of soil across the site. Some debris (i.e. - pallets, cans, shotgun shells, food container waste, etc.) was observed across the site. Additionally, some piles of wood from construction on the adjacent property were piled nearby, and being burned. The site was relatively flat with approximately 3 feet of vertical relief across the site (from our top of boring elevations). A steep slope exists to the east of the site area running parallel to KY 80. The slope starts near the site elevation and dramatically drops down (1H:1V or greater) to the KY 80 elevation.

No marked or unmarked utilities were observed on-site. Please reference the following photographs which depict the site area as it existed at the time of our field reconnaissance.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 8 22

Photo 1. View looking of the project site from the east. Photo 2. View looking of the project site from the east.

5 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, visual examination of field samples by an engineer, and tests of the samples collected. The letters in parentheses following the soil descriptions are the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. It should be noted that the stratification lines shown on the soil 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.

5A SOIL CONDITIONS

We performed 10 borings (labeled B-101 through B-109, as well as B-101A) as well as 3 rock soundings (borings without sampling, labeled S-102A through S-104A) for this project. Borings B-101 through B-106 and all of the soundings were performed for the new building area, and borings B-107 through B-109 were performed for the proposed pavement area. The general overburden subsurface conditions consist primarily of mine spoil fill. The mine spoil fill consisted of varying amounts of gray and black to brown clay, shale, silt, and sand, with sandstone fragments in some areas. Also, wood (from trees) was observed in many of our borings and soundings. A summary of the subsurface conditions are summarized in Table 1:

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 9 22

Photo 3. View of slope to the east of the project site area.

5B GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was not observed in any borings upon completion of soil augering. Water was observed on our tools in 1 of our borings at a depth of approximately 10 feet. We expect this is perched (trapped) water within the fill material (not true ground water). Typical water conditions on these sites are either very shallow ponding (as can be observed in the “rutting” in the gravel/dirt roads across or near the site) or in “pockets” just above isolated soil lenses. These are typically not “widespread” in more sandy zones.

In sites underlain by significant amounts of old fill, water conditions that usually affect construction and performance of projects consist of trapped/perched water zones which occur in variable areas in the old fill mass. Perched water sources are often not linked to the more continuous relatively stable ground water table that typically occurs at greater depths. Site excavation activities or ground disturbance can expose these features and the resulting seepage can vary greatly.

Table 1. Overburden Conditions Observed

Boring No. Mine Spoil (ft.)

Auger Refusal

Depth (ft) Notes

B-101 44.6 44.6 wood fibers observed from about 34 to 35-½ feet

B-101A 4.9 4.9 wood fibers observed from about 34 to 35-½ feet

B-102 43.0 43.0

B-103 4.9 4.9

B-104 14.7 14.7

B-105 44.4 44.4** wood fibers observed during coring activities from about 44 to 52 feet

B-106 44.3 44.3

B-107 10.5* N/A

B-108 10.5* N/A

B-109 10.5* N/A

Sounding No. Auger Refusal Notes

S-102 14.8** wood fibers observed in auger cuttings

S-103 9.7

S-104 24.0

*terminated within layer **likely false refusal due to hard object

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 10 22

5C BEDROCK INFORMATION

Auger refusal was encountered in all of our soil test borings and soundings for the building at depths ranging from 4.9 feet to 44.6 feet. The remaining 3 pavement borings were terminated at a depth of 10.5 feet. We have interpreted auger refusal as the top of hard bedrock. Please note that boring B-105 experienced auger refusal at 44.6 feet, but we believe that the top of rock depth was actually 51.9 feet.

Seven rock cores were obtained in the building borings B-101, B-101A, and B-102 through B-106. The rock cores obtained generally consisted of shale or sandstone. No voids or core water loss were observed during coring activities or in our recovered rock core samples. However, auger refusal at B-105 was on a large piece of wood, and the top of rock depth was approximately 7.3 feet below the auger refusals depth. The recovery for the rock samples obtained ranged from 90 percent to 100 percent. The recovered rock core rock core samples had very poor to excellent engineering quality with Rock Quality designation (RQDs) ranging from 12 to 100 percent. Please reference Table 2 and our Boring Logs for specific details.

THIS SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 11 22

GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6 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 development. However, this site represents more difficult (and higher cost) construction due to the mine spoil fill, and the encountered

Table 2. Bedrock Conditions Observed

Boring No.

Auger Refusal Depth

(ft)

Strata Depth (ft) Bedrock Strata Run

Run Depth

(ft)

Recovery

RQD

Qu (ksf)

B-101 44.6 44.6-51.5

SHALE - light gray, hard, sandy, with a few mud seams in top 2 feet 1 44.6 98 90 N/A

51.5-54.6* SANDSTONE - light gray, medium grained, hard 2 54.6 98 98 N/A

B-101A 4.9 4.9-14.9* SHALE - light gray with brown zones

1 4.9 100 68 N/A

2 9.9 92 82 308

B-102 43.0

43.0-48.0 SHALE - light gray, hard, sandy, with some weathering 1 43.0 94 83 375

48.0-48.6 Mudseam 2 45.0 96 20 N/A

48.6-53.0 SANDSTONE - light gray, medium grained, hard 3 50.0 100 100 N/A

B-103 44.3 4.9-14.9* SHALE - gray, fine grained, highly weathered with mud seams

1 4.9 60 12 N/A

2 9.9 92 25 N/A

B-104 14.7 14.7-24.7* SHALE - gray, fine grained, highly weathered, with mud seams

1 14.7 100 95 1088

2 19.7 90 63 N/A

B-105 44.4

44.4-51.9 Wood - The diameter of the core barrel, approximately 3 inches long 1 44.4 0 0 N/A

51.9-62.4*

SANDSTONE - light gray with brown bands, fine grained, hard

- Mud seams observed from 54.9 to 57.8 feet

2 49.4 37 27 N/A

3 54.4 93 70 895

4 59.4 92 92 N/A

B-106 44.3 44.3-48.3

SHALE - light gray, sandy, highly weathered in top 2 feet 1 44.3 100 47 1600

48.3-54.3* SANDSTONE - light gray, fine grained, hard 2 49.3 100 95 N/A

*terminated within layer

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 12 22 subsurface conditions encountered at our boring locations. The primary geotechnical concerns for this project site are:

• Previously Placed Fill (Mine Spoil)

• Sandy Soils

• Varying Depth to Bedrock

• Cobbles and Boulders

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

6A PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (MINE SPOIL)

We believe the primary geotechnical concern (by far) for this site is old mine spoil fill. All of our borings encountered old mine spoil fill. The mine spoil fill consisted of varying amounts of gray and black to brown clay, shale, silt, and sand, with sandstone fragments in some areas. Also, wood (from trees) was observed in many of our borings and soundings.

Most of these were sandstone materials, with minor sandy shale and soil materials. Mine spoil fill contains inconsistent mixtures of uncontrolled fill material and is highly variable even in a small area.

The materials (in this case) were loosely placed from adjacent original hillsides as part of what is locally called “strip mining” activities, decades ago.

The mine spoil fill appears to have been placed 20 to 30 years ago. This would indicate that most or all of the long-term total settlement is likely “complete”. However, there was a significant amount of wood observed in our borings. Please reference the following Photos 4 and 5 depicting observed wood collected in our various sampling techniques.

Photo 4. Wood observed from rock core barrel. Photo 5. Wood observed in SPT sample.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 13 22

Therefore, we believe the biggest concern with the site's mine spoil fill is settlement (both total and differential settlement). This is usually a result of irregular portions of the fill “shifting” or “hidden pockets” of deleterious materials “compressing”.

If any old fill is left in-place beneath the proposed site improvements, or structural loads are not transferred through the mine spoil fill into the underlying bedrock, you must be aware of the risk of construction over old fill material and hold CSI harmless for poor performance of the site improvements due to construction over the old fill.

6B SANDY SOILS

Our borings encountered sandy soils on-site. Sandy soils will not remain stable and slough/slump in excavations. Also, sandy soils will not remain stable when left exposed to weathering conditions (i.e. - if left open in foundation or other excavations). Sandy soils tend to hold/have water pockets when surrounded by more clayey soils. These issues will likely create additional costs for smaller excavations at the site such as utilities and foundations. Also, other than the upper couple feet, the sandy soils at the site are somewhat porous and detention basins will need to be at least 200 feet from the building pad to avoid retained water “flowing” under the building footprint (very detrimental to the building performance).

6C VARYING DEPTH TO BEDROCK

Our borings encountered varying depth to bedrock. Auger refusal depths ranged from 4.9 feet (near borings B-101A and B-103) in the northwest and southwest corners of the proposed building footprint, to

14.9 feet (near Boring B-104), and about 19 feet (near Sounding S-104A) to about 44.3 feet in the southeast corner (near Boring B-106). These varying depths to bedrock, along with the mine spoil fill add to the risk of differential settlement.

6D COBBLES AND BOULDERS

Cobbles and Boulders were observed in our borings. Cobbles are defined as particles that are between 3 and 12 inches in size. Boulders are particles that are greater than 12 inches in size. Larger sizes are likely. Cobbles and Boulders can create excavation difficulties and irregular excavations. Cobbles and Boulders can also create an inconsistent bearing condition because of “hard” spots below the bearing interface and differential settlement occurs. The soil around the “hard” spots settle more than the soil directly above the “hard” spots. Overages in earthwork calculations should be budgeted when cuts are planned for the site.

7 CONSTRUCTION APPROACH OPTIONS

Because of the mine spoil fill and variable depth to bedrock that exists on-site, we discussed the risk of construction in the area with the structural engineer, Mr. Dan Kubican, PE as well as the project architect, Katrina Littrell, AIA. Specifically we discussed risk with respect to settlement (both total and differential settlement) of the building foundations and floor slabs. First, the use of shallow foundations and free floating slabs was eliminated because the risk of differential settlement perpetuating slab and foundation damage. Next, supporting the building with a mat foundation was considered. However, this alternative was eliminated due to the possibility of “tilting” of the foundation due to settlement resulting from the KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 14 22 variable depth of bedrock (i.e. - less than 5 feet in the southwest corner and over 44 feet in the southeast corner). Lastly, construction utilizing drilled shaft foundations, grade beams, and a structural floor slab was discussed. This approach greatly reduces the risk of settlement by transferring the foundation loads though the mine spoil fill to the underlying bedrock. This also reduces differential settlement risk resulting from the varying depth to bedrock because again, the foundations bear directly on the bedrock. The structural floor slab is supported by grade beams connected to the drilled shaft foundations. This alternative was determined to be the only option with an acceptable amount of risk. The remainder of this report will be written offering recommendations for drilled shaft foundations supporting grade beams and a structural floor slab.

8 EARTHWORK

Historically, more change orders (in total number and costs) occur during the earthwork portion of construction than in almost any other part of the project. Further, the site preparation phase of construction always affects the future performance of project structures and pavements. Add into this, the fact that earthwork is the portion of work most influenced by wet weather and unknown conditions and time-wise, this section of the report could be the most important to prevent and minimize delays and costs during construction and for the life of the project.

We were not provided with a grading plan for this project. Based on our top of boring elevation, there is only approximately 3 feet of cut or fill across the building pad area. Thus, we expect minimal earthwork on this project. We understand that the project foundations and floor slabs will bear on bedrock (directly or indirectly). However, the project pavements will likely bear on the mine spoil fill. If any old fill is left in-place beneath the proposed site improvements, you must be aware of the risk of construction over old fill material and hold CSI harmless for poor performance of the site improvements due to construction over the mine spoil fill.

Please review the concerns listed in section 6 prior to reading the following recommendations. If problems occur that the recommendations do not address or do not adequately remedy, please contact CSI as soon as possible.

8A SITE PREPARATION (WORK PRIOR TO FILLING)

• If applicable, remove/relocate utilities as required by the construction plans (not expected);

• When ready to commence construction, all topsoil and organic materials should be removed (stripped) from the construction area and all structural fill areas;

• Since the site is essentially level, minimal site grading is anticipated over the majority of the site area;

• Areas ready to receive new fill should be proofrolled with a heavily loaded dump truck (GVW of 80,000 pounds) or similar equipment judged acceptable by a CSI geotechnical engineer;

• The level of proofroll for any site area should be determined by a CSI geotechnical engineer on a case-by-case basis;

• Perform the proofrolling after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading the subgrade;

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 15 22

• Areas which pump, rut, or wave during proofrolling may require remediation, so the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for guidance;

• Backfill of undercut areas should be performed in accordance with sections 8B and 8C;

• Retain CSI to observe the proofrolling operations and make recommendations for any unstable or unsuitable conditions encountered. This can save time on the construction schedule and save unnecessary undercutting.

We recommend that site grading should take place between about late April to late October.

Earthwork taking place outside this time period will likely encounter wet conditions and weather conditions that will provide little to no assistance with drying the soils.

8B NEW FILL OPERATIONS

We expect that some (but not all) of the on-site soils are suitable for use as structural fill material provided the material is placed and compacted in accordance with the following guidelines and specifications. Any off-site fill material should be tested and approved before it is imported to the project site. Off-site soils with a plasticity index (PI) greater than 25 percent should not be used for new fill.

After the subgrade has been approved to receive new fill, the fill may commence with the following procedures and guidelines recommended:

• Place fill in maximum 8-inch thick loose lifts;

• Fill lifts should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density (ASTM D698) and maintain the moisture content of compacted fill within 3 percent of optimum moisture;

• Off-site soils with a plasticity index (PI) of greater than 25 percent should not be used new fill;

• Fill compaction requirements should be extended to at least 5 feet outside the building area;

• Maximum particle size of the soil should be limited to 4 inches in any dimension with no concentrations of large fragments. This may require breaking down (or crushing) larger rock fragments to an acceptable size if they are to be incorporated into the new fill mass;

• Density testing should be performed as a means to verify percent compaction and moisture content of the material as it is being placed and compacted. If on-site fill material is used for engineered fill, it may need to be assessed by visual means such as proofrolling as nuclear density testing may not yield accurate or meaningful results;

• Observation of fill “stability” is also critical, so it is recommended to observe the operation of the filling equipment traversing over the new fill to document movement (similar to proofrolling);

• Soils should not be “overcompacted” and construction traffic should be kept to minimum to assure compaction is achieved and that the soil is not allowed to “break down”;

• Retain a representative of CSI to observe and document fill placement and compaction operations.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 16 22

8C BACKFILL OPERATIONS (FOUNDATION WALLS, UTILITIES, ETC.)

These materials are placed in more confined areas than mass earthwork materials and therefore cannot be placed in full compliance with sections 8A or 8B. The following are general recommendations for backfill areas:

• Fill lift thicknesses will vary dependent on compaction equipment available and material types, but in no case should exceed 8 inches;

• For crushed stone/aggregate backfills in trenches or wall backfill and when using smaller compaction equipment (such as a plate compactor or trench compactor or similar) the lift thickness should not exceed 4 inches;

• Compaction/moisture percentages and density testing requirements should be the same as in section 8B;

• CSI should be retained to provide additional recommendations for backfill (if necessary).

8D GENERAL NOTES

• For all earthwork operations, positive surface drainage is essential to keep water from ponding on the surface and to assist in maintaining surface stability;

• The surface should be sealed prior to expected wet weather. This can usually be accomplished with rubber-tired construction equipment or a steel-drum roller;

• If any soil placement problems occur, CSI should be retained to provide additional recommendations, as needed.

9 SITE DRAINAGE

Control of surface water at this site is imperative to prevent soil piping or soil mass loss into the existing fill. During construction, water should not be allowed to pond in excavations or undercutting will likely be required. During the life of the project, slope the subgrade and other site features so that surface water flows away from the site structure. Structure roof drains should be piped away to proper storm drainage systems. Diversion ditches should be used to keep surface water from accumulating at or near site structures. For excavations during construction, most free water could likely be removed via sump pumps and open channel flow (ditches) at or near the source of seepage. If normal dewatering measures prove insufficient due to shallow water conditions, CSI should be retained to provide recommendations on the issue. We do not recommend the use of irrigation systems at his site due to the potential for soil mass loss and unwanted settlement.

As previously mentioned, wet conditions are possible in excavations on-site during site construction.

Daylighting wet zones for drainage or the use of french/rock drains may be prudent or cost effective methods of de-watering wet areas of the site. Pumping with long-flexible hoses day-lighted hundreds of feet away or other types of sumping could also be utilized if necessary. CSI should be retained to observe all excavations in locations of springs or other water-bearing features.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 17 22

10 FOUNDATIONS

Based on the information provided, the conditions encountered, and our meeting with the design team, deep foundations bearing on rock should be a suitable foundation system to support the proposed addition. If there are any changes in the project criteria or building addition location, CSI should be allowed to review the recommendations to determine if any modifications are required.

10A DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS

The following sections provide design and construction recommendations for drilled shaft foundations.

Design Considerations for Rock-Bearing Foundations

The drilled shafts may be sized for an allowable end-bearing pressure of 30,000 pounds per square foot (30 ksf) for drilled shafts bearing on competent bedrock. This allowable bearing pressure is based on the assumption that the bearing material for each drilled shaft will be observed, evaluated with a test hole, and approved by a CSI geotechnical engineer. The drilled shafts should bear at least 2 feet into competent bedrock (rock socket) for end-bearing performance under gravity loading conditions. We recommend a minimum drilled shaft diameter of 30 inches be used in the design to allow down-hole inspection of the bedrock.

Additional design considerations for drilled shaft foundations are as follows:

• Design the drilled shaft for end bearing only for gravity loading conditions.

• Skin friction should not be utilized because of the mine spoil fill.

• Neglect the upper 1 foot of the bedrock (rock socket) for all resistance calculations.

• The allowable uplift capacity of the drilled shaft should be no more than 2/3 of the allowable shaft resistance for downward loading.

A detailed settlement analysis was beyond the scope of this exploration. However, based on the anticipated structural loads and drilled shafts bearing on competent bedrock, we expect both total settlements and differential settlements will not exceed ¼ inch.

Rock Excavation

The amount of rock excavation in drilled shafts can have a major impact on the final cost of installed foundations. CSI’s experience indicates general drilled shaft construction and delineation of "rock" in the excavation is greatly facilitated if suitable drilling equipment is used. The use of a drill capable of producing at least 500,000 inch·pounds of torque and 35,000 pounds of downward force is recommended. Additionally, CSI recommends that rock be defined as material which cannot be penetrated by a heavy duty earth auger with hardened teeth at a rate in excess of 3 inches per minute.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 18 22

10B DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATIONS - CONSTRUCTION NOTES

General Considerations for Construction of Drilled Shafts

• Provide a minimum drilled shaft diameter of 30 inches to reasonably enter the drilled shaft excavation for cleaning, bottom preparation and inspection.

• Clean the foundation bearing area so it is nearly level or suitably benched and is free of ponded water or loose material.

• Install a temporary protective steel casing to prevent sidewall collapse, prevent excessive mud and water intrusion, and to allow workers to safely enter, clean and inspect the drilled shaft.

• Make provisions for groundwater removal from the drilled shaft excavation. Groundwater flow may require the use of special procedures to achieve a satisfactory foundation installation.

Concrete placement may require the use of a tremie pipe or concrete pumping equipment.

• Clean the socket "face" prior to concrete placements. Cleaning will require hand cleaning or washing if mud smear forms on the face of the rock. A CSI geotechnical engineer should approve the rock socket surface prior to concrete placement.

11 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION

The latest edition of the Kentucky Building Code (KBC) was reviewed to determine the Site Seismic Classification. Based on our review of geologic data, our experience and subsurface conditions encountered and the use of shallow foundations placed over deep mine spoil fill, we recommend a Seismic SITE CLASS "D" for foundation design purposes.

A detailed geotechnical earthquake engineering analysis was not performed since it was beyond the scope of our authorized work. However, based on a review of published literature and our experience with similar subsurface conditions, we believe the potential for slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture due to faulting or lateral spreading resulting from earthquake motions is low. However, this potential could be elevated during wet periods of the year unless adequate drainage is provided.

12 STRUCTURAL FLOOR SLAB

As previously stated in this report, floor slab construction will consist of structural floor slabs. We expect that the structural floor slabs will be supported by the grade beams and drilled shafts. As such, no recommendations are presented in this report for grade supported floor slabs.

13 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

As previously discussed the site is underlain by mine spoil fill. We generally recommend complete removal of the fill, but understand that this may not be economically feasible for pavement areas.

Therefore we suggest two (2) alternatives for the construction of pavement areas depending on the Owners tolerance for risk.

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 19 22

• Stabilize the pavement areas with geogrid and fill to subgrade with stone (if it’s a fill site) or undercut the pavement areas, place grid, and backfill with stone (if it’s a cut site), or a combination of both if it's a cut/fill site. Geogrid (BX1200) and at least 6 inches of dense grade aggregate (DGA) could be used to stabilize the subgrade prior to asphalt placement. The deeper below subgrade the geogrid is placed, the more effective it is.

-OR-

• Just perform heavy proofrolls of the pavement areas, remediate any areas that fail proofroll, and accept the risk. The risk can be defined as a shortened pavement life span, increased maintenance costs, cracking, rutting, vertical/horizontal separation, etc.

Thus, the Owner must understand the risk of constructing the pavements over the mine spoil fill, and hold CSI harmless of any damage (i.e. - cracking, separation, etc.) of the pavements resulting from construction over the old fill. We expect that the traffic in the pavement areas will be limited primarily to automobiles, although delivery trucks and an occasional garbage truck are also expected. Adequate and consistent soil/subgrade support is critical for any pavement area. Please refer to the recommendations contained in the Earthwork section of this report for subgrade preparation.

Adequate drainage and slope of the pavement subgrade and pavement section should be provided to promote adequate drainage. Edges of the pavement should be provided a means of water outlet by extending the aggregate base course through to side ditches or providing drain pipes and weep holes at catch basin walls.

The following pavement recommendations are based on our experience with similar materials and loading conditions. We have assumed that the existing fill will remain in-place provided it holds up well to a heavy proofroll. The recommendations are based on the assumption that the existing soil subgrade will be compacted and/or remediated according to the recommendations contained in this report.

Extensive remedial efforts for the pavement subgrade should be budgeted for on this project.

13A ASPHALT PAVEMENT

We recommend that the light duty pavement section be utilized in areas restricted mostly to automobiles (i.e. - parking areas, etc.) and that the heavy duty pavement section may be used in the main drive lanes. Generalized pavement designs for both light duty and heavy duty pavement (based on the assumed ESAL’s of 2 for light duty and 5 for heavy duty) and empirical correlations with laboratory determined soil classifications are given below.

Table 3. Light Duty Asphalt Pavement Section

Pavement Section Component Thickness (in)

Bituminous Surface Course 1.5

Bituminous Binder Course 2.5

Dense Graded Aggregate (DGA)* 8.0

*DGA to be placed in 6 inch thick maximum, compacted lifts

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 20 22

13B RIGID PAVEMENT (CONCRETE)

We anticipate reinforced concrete pavement will be used in areas where the pavement is subjected to high stresses such as entrances/exits and dumpster pads. Prior to stone base placement, we recommend an additional heavy proofroll of the subgrade be performed to verify subgrade conditions.

Recommendations for undercutting/repair of the subgrade can be made at that time by a CSI geotechnical engineer.

We recommend a minimum DGA thickness of 8 inches beneath new concrete pavement and a minimum concrete thickness of 6 inches for new concrete pavement areas. Obviously, thicker concrete pavement sections can be used in select areas where heavy wheel loads are expected. For dumpster pads and refuse container pads (if any), the concrete pads should be large enough to accommodate both the refuse container and all axles of the truck. Additionally, we recommend the use of reinforcing steel, not welded wire fabric or fibre mesh

14 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. CSI 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 CSI 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 CSI to provide this service based upon our familiarity with the project, the subsurface conditions and the intent of our recommendations.

Table 4. Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement Section

Pavement Section Component Thickness (in)

Bituminous Surface Course 1.5

Bituminous Binder Course 3.5

Dense Graded Aggregate (DGA)* 12

*DGA to be placed in 6 inch thick maximum, compacted lifts

KYTC District Office - Manchester, KY November 15, 2023

CSI Project Number: LX230212 page of 21 22

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…