Addendum One .pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

DEPARTMENT FOR FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-284-23

FOR: Outwood Rescare Fire Water Storage Rescare Community Living Cabinet for Health and Family Services Christian County, Kentucky

DATE: June 29, 2023

RFB-785-2300000831

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.

Item 2: Consultant contact information: Kenny McDaniel, BFW Engineering Phone: (270) 443-1995.

Email: kmcdaniel@bfwengineers.com

END OF ADDENDUM

Invitation to Bid No. RFB-284-23 For: Outwood Rescare Fire Water Storage Rescare Community Living Cabinet for Health and Family Services Christian County, Kentucky

Susan Ward, Statewide Procurement Analyst II Division of Engineering and Contract Administration mailto:kmcdaniel@bfwengineers.com

BFW #22420 CHFS – Out Repair/Replace Water Tower

729CA030W3100

GEOTECHNICAL DATA 003132 - 1

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

A. This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting

Requirements for Project. They provide Owner's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the Owner, the Architect, the Architect's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

C. Soil-boring data for Project, obtained by <Insert agency or firm name>, dated <Insert date of logs>, is available for viewing [on Project Web site] [at the office of Architect] [at the office of Construction Manager] [at the office of Owner] [as appended to this Document].

D. A geotechnical investigation report for Project, prepared by <Insert agency or firm name>, dated <Insert date of report>, is available for viewing [on Project Web site] [at the office of

Architect] [at the office of Construction Manager] [at the office of Owner] [as appended to this Document].

1. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer. Owner is not responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn from the data.

2. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

E. Related Requirements:

Outwood ResCare Fire Water Tank

Dawson Springs, Kentucky

Submittal Date:

May 3, 2023

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

5/3/2023

Exp. 6/30/2024

May 3, 2023

Mr. Dewayne Brown Division of Engineering and Contract Administration Department for Facilities & Support Services Bush Building 403 Wapping Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

RE: Geotechnical Exploration Report Outwood ResCare Fire Water Tank Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project No: 22420

Dear Mr. Brown:

Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW), is pleased to present the attached Geotechnical Exploration Report for the referenced site.

The geotechnical exploration was conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. The attached report includes a review of pertinent project information provided to us, descriptions of site and subsurface conditions encountered, and our general recommendations for foundations, site preparation and construction phase concerns.

The appendices contain a boring location plan, site plan and results of all field and laboratory tests conducted for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and look forward to future association with you on this and other projects. If you have questions concerning this report, please call our office.

Sincerely, Christopher L. Mathews, P.E. Christopher N. Farmer, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer/Branch Manager Principal Engineer

Attachment: Geotechnical Exploration Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project Information and Objective Existing Site Description Subsurface Exploratory Method

2. Subsurface Conditions Regional Geology Site-Specific Subsurface Conditions Groundwater

3. Laboratory Testing Natural Moisture Contents Atterberg Limits Unconfined Compressive Strength

4. Geotechnical Considerations and Recommendations Basis for Recommendations Upper Silty Soil Zones/ Construction/ Subgrade Degradation Foundation Recommendations Seismic Considerations

Seismic Hazards Analysis Seismic Site Class Mapped Acceleration Parameters / Site Coefficients Liquefaction

4.4.4.1 Liquefaction Induced Settlements

4.4.4.2 Slope Stability

4.4.4.3 Lateral Spreading

Concrete Slabs General Site Preparation/Construction Recommendations

Clearing / Grubbing / Stripping Subgrade Preparation Engineered Fill Placement Shallow Foundation Excavations Surface Water Control

Other Design Considerations Project Specifications Construction Monitoring

5. Qualifications of Recommendations

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Aerial Photograph and Site Plan

Appendix B – Subsurface Boring Logs

Appendix C – Soil Laboratory Data

TABLES

Table 3.1 – Natural Moisture Content Table 3.2 – Atterberg Limits Table 3.3 – Unconfined Compressive Strength Table 4.1 – ASCE 7 Design Seismic Hazards Parameters

ABBREVIATIONS

amsl above mean sea level ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BFW Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

bgs below ground surface

DGA densely graded aggregate ksf kips per square foot

LL Liquid Limit

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service pcf pounds per cubic foot PI Plasticity Index PL Plastic Limit psf pounds per square foot psi pounds per square inch

SPT standard penetration test

USCS Unified Soil Classification System USGS United States Geologic Survey

Geotechnical Exploration Report

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

1. PROJECT INFORMATION AND OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore the subsurface conditions present at the site and to determine pertinent engineering properties of the materials encountered. Our services were provided in general accordance with the proposal dated January 19, 2023.

The subject site is located on the northeast portion of the Outwood ResCare facility in Dawson Springs, Kentucky.

Based on information provided a new elevated water storage tank is planned. The elevated tank will have a 75,000-gallon storage capacity and will be supported by four legs with a center-fill stem. The location of the proposed tank is shown in the Site Plan in Appendix A. Minimal grade changes will be required withing the footprint of the tanks with planned cuts and/or fills on the order of 1 to 2 feet.

EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed elevated water storage tank will be located on the northeast portion of the Outwood ResCare facility in Dawson Springs, Kentucky. Currently the project site consists of an undeveloped grass lot. The project site is shown in Figure 1.1. The elevation of the site is fairly level at approximately 625 feet above mean sea level (amsl) [National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1953].

Figure 1.1 – Site Location

SITE

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATORY METHOD

The procedures used by Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW) for field and laboratory sampling and testing are in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures and established engineering practice. A total of three (3) test borings were advanced to depths ranging from 24.0 to 29.1 feet during the exploration. The boring locations were staked in the field by BFW personnel using a handheld GPS unit. Elevations at the boring locations were interpolated from publicly availably LiDAR obtained from the KYAPED Point Cloud (Index N156E117) and should be considered approximate in nature. See the Aerial Photograph, Site Plan and Subsurface Boring Logs in Appendices A and B for more detail.

A Dietrich D-50 ATV-mounted rotary-drilling rig was used to advance the soil test borings and to obtain soil samples for laboratory evaluation. The test borings were advanced in accordance with geotechnical investigative procedures outlined in ASTM D-1452. Borings were backfilled with native soil cuttings at the completion of the subsurface investigation.

Disturbed samples were retrieved during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) [ASTM D-1586] using an automatic hammer assembly at various depths in the underlying stratum. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler (split-spoon) into the soil with a 140-pound weight falling freely through 30 inches. The sampler was driven in three (3) successive 6-inch increments, with the number of blows per increment being recorded. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance (N).

Where possible, undisturbed samples were also collected by advancing steel Shelby Tubes into the underlying soils. Shelby tubes are approximately 3-inches in diameter and have a knife edge along one end of the tube.

After advancing Shelby Tube by hydraulically pushing into the soils, the “undisturbed” soil remains inside the tube and is sealed to preserve the natural moisture content. If gravel or large stone is present within the underlying soil matrix, then the Shelby Tube will likely be unable to be advanced. Once at the laboratory, the soil sample is pushed out of the tube in the same direction as initially advanced and is preserved for further testing.

Drilling operations and visual classification of soil samples were performed in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488 guidelines. Records of the conditions encountered, and visual soil classification were prepared and incorporated in the Subsurface Boring Logs included in Appendix B.

The Subsurface Boring Logs represent BFW’s interpretation of the conditions encountered within the soil test borings. It should be noted that strata changes may vary from those encountered within the soil test borings, transitions may be gradual or abrupt, and conditions may vary significantly at other locations. The groundwater information listed represents conditions at the time of drilling activities.

2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) online web soil database was reviewed to determine the type of soil underlying the area of interest. Based on the available data the subject property is shown as Zanesville Silt Loam. The Zanesville Silt Loam is described as moderately well drained soils that formed from fine-silty noncalcareous loess over loamy residuum weathered from sandstone and shale Zanesville Silt Loam soils show slopes of 2-6%, are generally found in flood plains. According to the Kentucky Geological Survey’s Geologic Map of the Dawson Springs Quadrangle this site is underlain by Pennsylvanian aged Tradewater Formation. This formation in this are consists primarily of sandstones, siltstones, and shales, with some limestone units.

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

SITE-SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Surficial materials on the site typically consisted of approximately 2 inches of topsoil. The native soil profile was generally consistent across the site, consisting of a lean clay (CL) with varying amounts of sand. Isolated sand layers occurred at depths of approximately 5 to 9 feet in boring B-2 and 6 to 7 feet in B-3. The lean clay extended to depths of approximately 19 to 24 feet and was underlain by a weathered shale that became more competent with depth. The weathered shale extended to termination and/or refusal depths in all three borings, ranging between 24.0 and 29.1 feet. The cohesive soils were very soft to hard, with SPT N-values ranging from 3 to 93 blows per foot.

GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered during the field exploration. It should be noted that groundwater levels are dependent upon seasonal and climatic variations and may be present at different depth in the future. We do not anticipate groundwater will have a large influence on the proposed improvements.

3. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory soil tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. Natural moisture contents were determined for all samples collected. Atterberg Limits tests and grain size analyses were conducted on selected soil samples to verify field classification of the soils. In addition, these tests evaluate the potential for volumetric changes in the soil. Unconfined compression tests were performed on the Shelby tube samples to provide an indication of soil strength. Complete laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENTS

Natural moisture contents were determined for the soil samples collected. Table 3.1 provides the range of moisture content derived from the soil samples analyzed.

Table 3.1 – Natural Moisture Content

ATTERBERG LIMITS

Atterberg Limit tests were performed on representative samples. Table 3.2 provides the results of the Atterberg Limits testing.

Table 3.2 – Atterberg Limits

Sample Depth LL PL PI Classification

B-1 3.0 21 15 6 CL-ML

B-2 6.0 30 16 14 CL

B-3 5.8 37 21 16 CL

Depth (feet bgs)

Minimum

Maximum

0.0-6.0 8.7 25.1 7.5-15.0 10.4 41.4

20.0-25.0 5.1 11.4

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

An unconfined compressive strength test was performed on the Shelby tube samples. Table 3.3 provide the results of the unconfined compressive strength test.

Table 3.3 – Unconfined Compressive Strength

4. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, current site conditions observed, and laboratory results, items of geotechnical interest and considerations are discussed in the following sections.

BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on data from this exploration and the stated project information.

In our evaluations, we have utilized both subsurface data from this exploration and our experience with similar structures and subsurface conditions. If the structural information is incorrect or changed after our reporting, if the siting or building components have been changed, or if the subsurface conditions encountered during the construction vary from those reported, our recommendations should be reviewed based on the changed conditions.

Experience indicates that the actual subsoil conditions at a site could vary from those generalized based on soil test borings made at specific locations. Therefore, it is essential that a geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil-engineering services during the site preparation, excavation, and foundation construction phases of the proposed project. The geotechnical engineer should observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

UPPER SILTY SOIL ZONES/ CONSTRUCTION/ SUBGRADE

DEGRADATION

Based on the subsurface data encountered, the in-situ soils consist of soils with a relatively high silt content. It should be noted that silty soils can be very susceptible to degrade to unsuitable soils in the presence of moisture and construction traffic. In addition, silty soils are typically difficult to properly compact when significantly wet of optimum moisture content as determined by a Standard Proctor test. The contractor must fully understand the causes and effects of moisture versus compaction for loamy soil and the detrimental effect of construction traffic on soil subgrades. A discussion of silty soils and some of the potential negative effects of moisture and construction traffic are provided below.

If the silty soils are too dry or wet (above or below the optimum moisture content) then the soils will typically not compact properly even with above normal compaction efforts. If the soils are too dry, then water can be added on site during the compaction activities, but the soils will need time to adsorb the added moisture.

However, if the soil moistures are too high, as typically the case in the spring and winter months, then the soils must be manipulated to accelerate drying by discing and aerating or by other means that would require above routine efforts.

The contractor should understand that aerating the soil requires a concerted effort to overturn, disc and manipulate the soils multiple times during the drying process. Typically, overturning the soils and discing once

Sample Depth (ft) Compressive Strength (psf)

Strain at Failure

B-1 3.0 1,334 2.5 B-2 6.0 1,620 3.7 B-3 5.8 2,331 2.7

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420 or twice will not be enough effort to dry the soils. It is the process of continually overturning and exposing the soils to the sun and wind that causes the drying process. However, this process is less effective during the wet seasons of the year and would typically require longer drying times. If the project time constraints do not allow for aeration, then additional drying methods, such as cement/lime stabilization or other methods may be needed.

It is also important to note that at the end of each day or prior to any rainfall events that the soil must be smoothed (slicked) and rolled to minimize any surface water infiltration. The site grading should always provide for positive site drainage away from the project site even during construction activities. Surface water / storm water should not be allowed to pond on the surface or in tire ruts.

Another characteristic of the silty soils is the high potential of subgrade degradation in the presence of elevated moistures and construction traffic. Extremely large tire loadings are typically present on construction sites from dump trucks, concrete trucks, and brick/masonry block forklifts (Pettybone). The tire loadings from these vehicles are usually the most significant concentrated loadings that the soil subgrades will most likely encounter. In many cases these tire loadings will exceed the overall shear strength of the in-situ soils and rutting/pumping will occur as a result. This is especially true during repeated heavy tire loadings occur when the soil subgrade wet or above its optimum moisture content. To reiterate, the contractor should be aware that repeated heavy construction traffic loadings will cause significant damage to the soil subgrade especially when the soils are wet or saturated.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the anticipated structural loadings, it is recommended that shallow foundations be used for structural support of the water tank. Shallow foundations should be seated in the existing in-situ soils and bear at a minimum depth of 6 feet ground surface. Given the foundations bear at or greater than a depth of 6 feet, a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square feet (psf) may be used for foundation design. A passive soil resistance modeled by an equivalent fluid unit weight of 250 pcf may be used for natural soil against the face of the footings. The upper 2 feet of soil against the face of the footing should be ignored when calculating lateral resistance. These values assume a Factor of Safety of 3. An increase of one-third may be permitted for transient loadings, including wind and earthquake loads.

All foundation bearing soils should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer prior to steel and concrete placement. We anticipate that some localized areas of inadequate bearing materials may be encountered during construction; therefore, we recommend that an allowance be made in the construction budget for selected footing overexcavations. For footings designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, total settlement should be less than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings should be less than ¾ inch.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

It is anticipated that the elevated water tank and foundation design will be guided by all applicable industry standards including the American Water Work Association (AWWA) D 100-11 “Welded Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage”. In Section 13 of AWWA D100-11, it states that the seismic design criteria for the standard was adapted from American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7).

Based on requirements of the AWWA and ASCE 7, structures such as water storage tanks must be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions. The seismic structural designs are based, in part, on seismic spectral values that are the soil’s acceleration response to specific earthquake motion.

These seismic spectral values are determined by a seismic site class evaluation derived from subsurface site information.

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

Seismic Hazards Analysis

Per ASCE 7, a seismic hazard analysis must be conducted during the geotechnical for sites susceptible to ground motions. A seismic hazard analysis has been performed for the site to determine ground motions for use in liquefaction and dynamic deformation analyses. The ground motion analysis consists of acceleration response spectra and time histories developed using the tools developed by the United States Geological Service (USGS) for their Earthquake Hazards Program. Seismic design parameters were developed based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard ASCE 7-10.

The project site is located near the midcontinent of the U.S. away from active plate boundaries but in a region that exhibits a moderate level of historical seismicity. The site can experience strong ground shaking from moderate to large earthquakes (moment magnitude [M] > 6) particularly from the adjacent New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) and the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone (WVSZ). The New Madrid fault system (NMFS) which is located within the NMSZ produced the series of three M > 7 earthquakes in 1811 and 1812. These are the largest earthquakes known to have occurred in the central and eastern U.S. (CEUS).

Seismic Hazard Analysis for seismic design includes the determination of the Seismic Site Class based on in-situ soil conditions, soil liquefaction potential, potential settlement based on liquefaction, slope stability and lateral spreading potential. A discussion of each of the determinations is provided in the following sections of this report.

Seismic Site Class

Per AWWA D100 (Section 13.2.4), the Seismic Site Class of a site must be determined. The Site Class accounts for the effect of local soil conditions on the ground motion and shall be based on the types of soils present and their engineering properties. The Seismic Site Class is designated by letters A through E. These letter designations are based on specific in-situ soil properties within the upper 100 feet of the soil stratum and can be chosen based on one of the following methods including: a direct measurement of the soil shear wave velocity or correlation based on weighted averages of the Standard Penetration Data and/or Soil Undrained Shear Strength values. Standard Penetration data was used to determine the site class for this project and resulted in a Site Class C.

Mapped Acceleration Parameters / Site Coefficients

Electronic values of site-specific mapped acceleration parameters and other seismic design parameters were obtained online from ASCE 7 Hazard Tool website at the https://asce7hazardtool.online based on site coordinate data. The following seismic design accelerations are presented in Table 4.1 and were obtained using the determined site Seismic Site Class of “C.

Table 4.1 – ASCE 7 Design Seismic Hazards Parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Site Class C PGAM 0.346

FA 1.157 SDS 0.468

FV 1.574 SD1 0.237

FPGA 1.079 SDC D

PGA 0.321 -- --

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

Liquefaction

Liquefaction is the most widely known geologic hazard that must be considered for a project site. This hazard occurs when earthquake-induced ground motions result in the loss of strength within water-saturated, loose to firm, granular soils, and some soft fine-grained soils. The consequence of this strength loss relative to a structure can be reduction in bearing capacity, total and differential settlements, loss of lateral pile support and horizontal ground displacement from lateral spreading or flow failures within the ground.

Based on published data, liquefaction potential is highly dependent on the earthquake motions, soil type (granular versus cohesive), age of the soil deposit, soil density, soil fines content and groundwater depth.

Geologically, western Kentucky is comprised of ancient deposits from glacial periods of southern Illinois.

Upper fluvial and alluvial (water-deposited) soils and from loess (wind deposited) soil from the geologic Mississippian Embayment zone. Soils in this zone are comprised of layers of intermixed and interlensed sands, silts, gravels, and clays. Soils in these deposits are typically well graded with significant fines. Gravels are typically intermixed throughout the sands. The depths of these alluvial deposits become deeper the further west toward the Mississippi River. Deposits such as the Continental Deposits (Quaternary to Tertiary Period) are very dense in nature due to the age of deposition.

Based on ASCE 7-10 guidelines, the potential for liquefaction should be based on the geometric mean of the maximum considered earthquake peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM). The PGAM was calculated from the Mapped Acceleration Parameters listed in the preceding paragraphs and was determined to be 0.32g.

The liquefaction hazard at a site is commonly expressed in terms of a factor of safety. This factor is defined as the ratio between the available liquefaction resistance, expressed in terms of the cyclic stresses required to cause liquefaction and the cyclic stresses generated by the earthquake. Both stress parameters are commonly normalized with respect to the effective overburden stress at the depth in question to define a cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and a cyclic stress ratio induced by the earthquake (CSR). The CSR/CRR ratios of less than one (1) are typically defined as liquefiable soils. Empirical methods are the most widely used in practice and commonly use corrected SPTs blow counts from drilling activities, drive hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, drill rod stickup and split-spoon sampler type.

The liquefaction analysis for this project was conducted using multiple methods including the Simplified Performance-based Liquefaction Triggering (Boulanger & Idriss 2012) and the Simplified Performance-based Liquefaction Triggering (Cetin et al. 2004 after Mayfield et al. 2010) The CSR/CRR ratios of less than one (1) are defined as liquefiable soils within these methods. A computer software program SPLIQ, (Simplified Performance-based Liquefaction Analysis Tool) was used for this analysis. SPLIQ, is a FHWA pool funded program created by Brigham Young University. SPLIQ uses the analysis methods listed above in spreadsheets that includes settlement, slope movement and lateral spreading evaluation. In addition, a modified Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) method (Maurer et al. 2015) was used to assess liquefaction impacts if liquefiable soils were present.

Based on the analysis, all liquefaction potential methods used were in general agreement based on the maximum considered earthquake, PGAM, the age of the soil deposits and the subsurface and laboratory data obtained. From the analysis results the in-situ soils were deemed to be non-liquefiable under the maximum considered earthquake peak ground acceleration.

4.4.4.1 Liquefaction Induced Settlements

The actual amounts of ground displacements are a function of several parameters including the density of the liquefied soil layer, the depth and thickness of the liquefied layer, the thickness and permeability of un-liquified materials overlying the liquified layer, the ground slope, and nearness of a free face.

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

Based on the results of the liquefaction analysis, the in-situ soils were deemed to be non-liquefiable and therefore liquefaction induced settlements are anticipated to minimal to none with no anticipated surface effects.

4.4.4.2 Slope Stability

The existing overall area topography is generally flat. No significant amounts of fill material or cuts will be within the project area and therefore the negative effect of potential seismic slope instability is considered minimal.

Note: This seismic slope stability analysis does not include temporary slopes used during construction.

4.4.4.3 Lateral Spreading

Lateral spreading is a ground-failure phenomenon that can occur on gently sloping ground underlaid by liquefied soil. As the underlying soil liquifies, overlying soils spread laterally downslope causing surface cracking and damage. The analysis of lateral spreading is complex and there is little academic agreement.

Lateral spreading is most significant if open faces are present or slopes near creeks / streams. Based on the existing and proposed site topography, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be minimal.

CONCRETE SLABS

If subgrade soils are properly compacted as described in this report, then a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floor slab design if the subgrade is properly compacted throughout to at least 95% of Standard Proctor and within 2% of optimum.

If the subgrade has been properly compacted and inspected, a minimum of 4-inch-thick layer of free-draining compacted granular aggregate should be placed beneath the proposed floor slab. The compacted aggregate will provide a better load distribution from the floor slab to the soil, and it will provide additional protection against the migration of moisture upward through the floor slab.

GENERAL SITE PREPARATION/CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Clearing / Grubbing / Stripping

The subject site should be cleared, stripped, and grubbed of topsoil/organics, deleterious materials, and soft/unsuitable soils. Any extensive soft soil deposits encountered should be evaluated by extensive proof rolling and/or shallow excavations to determine the amount of undercutting required. Under no circumstances should the stripped material (i.e. old fill, trees, topsoil) be used as fill for any excavations, low-lying areas, or for any subsurface structural element.

Subgrade Preparation

After stripping and clearing, the areas intended to support floor slabs, new fill, and pavements should be carefully inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel. Any soft or unsuitable soils should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. Competent geotechnical personnel should be present during any undercutting activities to determine when adequate subgrade bearing has been achieved.

The site subgrade should be proof rolled in the presence of competent geotechnical personnel. Proof-rolling activities should occur after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading the subgrade. Proof-rolling should be performed by making repeated passes over the subgrade with a 20 to 30-ton loaded truck or other pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight. The vehicle should make enough passes in each of two perpendicular directions covering the proposed development area.

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

Any areas judged to deflect excessively during, proof rolling should be undercut and rerolled. This process should be repeated until all soft soils are removed, or the geotechnical engineer recommends an alternate stabilization method such as lime or cement stabilization. If removal of soft soils is impractical due to their excessive depth, “bridging” of the soft soils can often be accomplished by working 6- to 8-inch clean crushed rock into the softer soils and then placing a geofabric, such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent, prior to placing additional fill.

Any proof rolling activities should occur immediately before fill placement. If fill material is not immediately placed and subgrade can stand unprotected, then additional proof-rolling activities will be required in the same area to verify subgrade stability.

It is important to note that at the end of each day or prior to any rainfall events that the site subgrade be smoothed and rolled to minimize any surface water infiltration. The site grading should always provide for positive site drainage away from the project site even during construction activities. Surface water / storm water should not be allowed to pond on the surface or in tire ruts.

Extremely large tire loadings are typically present on construction sites from dump trucks, concrete trucks, masonry block and brick/masonry block forklifts (Pettybone). The tire loadings from these vehicles are usually the most significant concentrated loadings that the soil subgrades will most likely encounter. In many cases these tire loadings will exceed the overall shear strength of the in-situ soils or recently placed engineered fill and rutting and pumping will occur as a result. This is especially true during repeated heavy tire loadings occur when the soil subgrade wet or above its optimum moisture content. It is important that the site subgrade be properly maintained by the contractor for the extent of the entire project. The site should not be allowed to become rutted or water allowed to pond.

Engineered Fill Placement

Prior to any fill activities taking place, we recommend that representative samples of the proposed fill material be collected (minimum 5-gallon container of material) and tested to determine the laboratory compaction characteristics, plasticity, and natural moisture contents. The tests should be conducted to determine the suitability of proposed fill material. Based on the subsurface data obtained, the in-situ soils should be acceptable for use as engineered fill material once stripped of topsoil / organics.

Proposed fill materials should be free of organics, deleterious debris, or rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter. Suitable fill soil should have a plasticity index (PI) of less than 30 and a maximum dry density according to the standard Proctor compaction test of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). All fill soils and fill pads should be properly compacted and tested.

The fill should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the soil maximum dry density (ASTM D-698 “Standard Proctor”) under structures, building slabs and proposed paved areas. Fill materials in lawn area should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density. Moisture contents of the fill materials should be maintained to within ± 2 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture.

The soil should be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less for materials compacted by heavy equipment and not more than 4 inches loose depth for hand compaction equipment. Each lift should be compacted and tested by nuclear density gauge methods prior to placing additional lifts every 2,500 square feet. All fill pads should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building before sloping down. In-place density testing should be conducted for each lift placed to check the compaction achieved.

Positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent water from ponding on the surface during all earthwork operations. After each day’s work or prior to any anticipated rainfall, the subgrade should be rolled with a rubber-tired or steel-drummed roller to improve surface runoff. The geotechnical engineer should be notified if the subgrade soils become excessively wet, dry, or frozen.

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

Shallow Foundation Excavations

BFW should observe all footing and floor slab excavations for areas of soft soils or unsuitable existing fill. If the footings excavation become overly disturbed, remediation will be required. Overexcavation and replacement with structural fill should be performed where inadequate bearing materials are present in footing excavations.

The base of all excavations should be clean, free of loose soil or uncompacted fill, relatively dry and maintained near their optimum moisture content. Excavations should be protected from extreme temperatures, precipitation, and construction disturbances. To reduce the possibility of desiccation or saturation of the foundation soils, we recommend that the concrete be placed as soon as possible after excavations are made.

Surface Water Control

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the building subgrade surfaces. This is especially true during construction activities. Proper erosion and sedimentation control plans must be developed as per the City and State requirement.

OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Project Specifications

Specifications for this project should meet local building codes and OSHA guidelines. The observations, recommendations, and considerations presented in this report should be fully read and understood by the owner, project designer(s) and contractor(s) prior to final submittal of project plans and specifications.

Construction Monitoring

The implementation of a soil and concrete quality testing program aids in assuring that the product is that which was designed. Thorough testing also allows opportunity for correction before major problems develop. For these reasons, Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW), recommends the retainage of a qualified testing laboratory (by the Owner) to conduct quality tests on structural fill, aggregate base course, and concrete placement.

5. QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Our evaluation of foundation and pavement design and construction conditions has been based on our understanding of the site and on conditions encountered in the three (3) widely spaced boring locations at the time of investigation. The general subsurface conditions used were based on our interpolation of the subsurface data between the borings. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface investigation, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should observe earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in design are noted. Otherwise, BFW assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations.

The design recommendations in this report have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria or locations change, a qualified geotechnical engineer should be permitted to determine whether the recommendations must be modified. The findings of such a review will be presented in a supplemental report.

Dawson Springs, Kentucky BFW Project: 22420

The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction.

If such variations are encountered, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. BFW is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on this data.

BFW Project: 22420

Appendix A

Aerial Photograph and Site Plan

1 inch : 83 feet 2023-04-05HK/CM22420 Project Number: Dra ed/Checked: Date:

Outwood ResCare - Fire Water Tank 23524 Dawson Springs Rd

Dawson Springs, Chris an County, KY

Figure A.1 - Aerial Photograph

1 inch : 21 feet 2023-04-05HK/CM22420 Project Number: Dra ed/Checked: Date:

Outwood ResCare - Fire Water Tank 23524 Dawson Springs Rd

Dawson Springs, Chris an County, KY

Figure A.2 - Site Plan

Appendix B

Subsurface Boring Logs

BORING LOG / LABORATORY PROCEDURE GUIDE

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc., conducts soil test borings, field sampling and laboratory analysis in general accordance with methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and generally accepted engineering practices. Soil test borings were advanced with truck or track mounted rotary-type drilling rig equipment. Hollow stem or solid flight augers were used to advance soil test borings (ASTM D 1452). A series of soil samples are typically obtained for visual inspection and laboratory analysis during drilling activities. The samples collected may include disturbed, undisturbed or auger cutting samples.

BORING LOCATIONS / ELEVATIONS

Boring Locations are either selected by our project manager or have been selected by the client. The borings are typically located in the field by estimating right angles and measuring distances from site landmarks. Because of the locating methods used, the boring locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan (In Appendix) are approximate unless specifically noted. When topographic plans of the site are provided, the project engineer estimates the surface elevation of the boring locations using available information. Surveying to determine the locations and elevations of the borings is typically beyond the scope of the typical geotechnical study. Therefore, the boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate unless specifically noted.

BORING LOGS / RECORDS

The Subsurface Boring Logs included in this report are our interpretation of the conditions encountered at each boring location. The Subsurface Boring Logs are prepared on the basis of the field crew’s observations during drilling, engineering review of the soil samples obtained, and laboratory testing on selected samples. Soil descriptions are made using the Unified Soil Classification System and ASMT D 2488 as guides. The depths designating strata changes on the Boring Records are estimations. In many geologic settings, the transition between strata is gradual.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL READINGS

Groundwater levels are monitored in each borehole upon the completion of drilling. In low permeability soils such as silts and clays, the groundwater level in the boreholes may take several or more hours to stabilize. Therefore, when possible, water level readings are also made at least 24-hours after drilling activities cease. Groundwater levels may be dependent upon recent rainfall activity and other site specific factors. Since these conditions may change with time, the water level information presented on the Subsurface Boring Logs represents the conditions only at the time each measurement is taken.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

Soil samples are typically obtained at selected depths during the drilling activities. Representative portions of the soil samples obtained are placed in sealed containers, labeled, and transported to the laboratory. The soil samples obtained are used for visual classification, and for strength, index and consistency testing. Samples obtained from the drilling activities include: Disturbed, undisturbed and bulk samples. Disturbed samples are collected during the Standard Penetration Tests using a split spoon sampler and hammer as described in the following section. Undisturbed samples are obtained by advancing a thin-walled Shelby tube with hydraulic pressure as described in the following section. Bulk samples are obtained from the auger cuttings generated during the advancement of the augers.

The STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D 1586) is a method to obtain disturbed soil samples for examination and testing and to obtain relative density and consistency information. A standard 1.4-inch I.D. / 2-inch O. D. split-barrel (split spoon) sampler is driven three 6-inch increments with a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The hammer can either be of a trip, free-fall design or actuated by a rope and cathead. The hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is the standard penetration resistance (N-value). Standard penetration resistance, when properly evaluated, is an index to the soil’s strength, consistency and density. Upon completion of each standard penetration test, the sampler is brought to the surface and the tube is split open to expose the soils penetrated. Our project manager / engineer examines the soil and places a representative portion of the soil into a sealed container for transportation to our laboratory.

BORING LOG / LABORATORY PROCEDURE GUIDE

(Continued)

UNDISTURBED SOIL SAMPLING (ASTM D 1587) is a method used to obtain a relatively undisturbed soil sample for more precise laboratory analysis including unconfined compressive strengths, compressibility or permeability. Undisturbed soil sampling is conducted by advancing a 3–inch O. D., 16 gauge, steel tube (Shelby Tube) with a sharpened edge slowly and uniformly into the underlying soil stratum under constant hydraulic pressure to the desired sampling elevation. The tube is then removed from the ground and both ends are sealed to prevent loss of moisture. The depth at which the undisturbed samples were collected is indicated on the Subsurface Boring Logs.

SOIL LABORATORY TESTS

The MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 2216) of soils is an indicator of various physical properties, including strength and compressibility. Each test sample is weighed and then placed in an oven (110°C ± 5°C). The sample remains in the oven until the free moisture has evaporated. The dried sample is removed from the oven, allowed to cool and then reweighed. The moisture content is computed by dividing the weight of evaporated water by the weight of the dry sample. The results are expressed as a percent.

ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D 4318) tests are used to help define the relationship between behavior changes in fine-grained soils at different moisture contents values. Depending upon the moisture content, a fine-grained soil may occur in a liquid, plastic, semi-solid, or solid state. These set of tests are used to establish the approximate moisture contents at which the soil changes its state. LIQUID LIMIT – a soil specimen is wetted until it is in a viscous fluid state. A portion of the soil is then placed in a standardized dimension brass cup, and a groove is made through the middle of the soil specimen with a grooving tool of standardized dimensions. The cup is attached to a cam that lifts it 10 mm, and then allows it to freefall and strike a hard rubber base. The cam is rotated at about 2 drops per second until the two halves of the soil specimen come in contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm. The number of blows required to close the groove is recorded, and a portion of the specimen is subjected to moisture content determination. Additional water is added to the remainder of the specimen, and the grooving process and cam action process repeated. After the third trial, the number of blows versus moisture content is plotted on semi-logarithmic graph paper. The moisture content corresponding to 25 blows is designated as the Liquid Limit.

The Plastic Limit is the lowest moisture content at which the soil is sufficiently plastic to be manually rolled into threads 3 mm in diameter. It is determined by taking a pat of soil remaining from the liquid limit test, and repeatedly rolling, kneading, and air drying the specimen until the soil breaks into threads about 3 mm in diameter and 3 to 10 mm long. The moisture content of these soil threads is then determined, and is designated the Plastic Limit.

A PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS determines the distribution of particles sizes in soils. Distribution of particle sizes larger than the No. 200 sieve is determined by the sieving process, while the distribution of particles smaller than the No. 200 sieve are determined by a sedimentation process, using a hydrometer. In the sieving process the soil is prepared by air drying and crushing, to separate clusters that clump together. A series of sieves, that consist of a square mesh woven-wire cloth having different size openings as per ASTM specifications are each weighed individually. They are stacked with the greatest size opening at the top with each successive lower sieve having smaller openings. A pan is placed on the bottom of the stack to catch soil finer that the # 200 sieve (0.75 mm).

The soil is placed into the top sieve of the stack and is covered. The nest of sieves is placed and locked into a sieve shaker which is then agitated for approximately 10 minutes. Each sieve is reweighed with the retained soil.

A semi-logarithmic graph is created showing the percent passing each specific sieve size.

The UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST, (ASTM D 2166) is a relatively quick method to obtain the approximate compressive strength of soils that possess sufficient cohesion to allow testing in the unconfined state. An undisturbed sample is obtained from the borehole with a Shelby Tube sampler. The tube is sealed in the field to retain natural moisture content. Once in the laboratory the undisturbed sample is extruded from the tube and cut to a specified length. The sample measurements are recorded. The sample is placed in its natural state in a compressive strength load frame. The sample is compressed under increasing load.