Attachment B Report of Soils Investigation.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Barracks Geotechnical Investigation

Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center Greenville, Kentucky

Prepared for:

Division of Engineering and Contract Administration Department for Facilities and Support Services

Finance and Administration Cabinet 403 Wapping Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

August 12, 2026

Prepared by:

AEI Project #26-0204

ST

AT

E OF KENTUCKY

R

EENIGNELANOISSEF

OR

P

DESNECI

L

DAVID A.

LAMB

17822

David A.

Lamb, PE

Digitally signed by David A. Lamb, PE Date: 2026.08.12 17:34:18 -05'00'

Barracks Geotechnical Investigation Geotechnical Investigation Report

W.H. Ford Regional Training Center Greenville, Kentucky

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY

4.1 Geology and Groundwater

4.2 Seismicity

5.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Bedrock

6.2 Soil and Groundwater

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Foundations

7.2 Seismic Considerations

7.3 Site Preparation

7.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

7.5 Excavations

7.6 Grading and Drainage

7.7 Floor Slabs

7.8 Pavements

8.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Map

APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Boring Reports Appendix B Unified Soil Classification System Appendix C General Notes Appendix D Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Associated Engineers, Inc. has completed geotechnical exploration and engineering services for proposed barracks at the Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center. The purpose of these services is to characterize the current condition of the site. Additional investigation may be needed after development and grading plans become available.

The scope of services includes the following:

▪ Review of available data pertinent to the site.

▪ Site Inspection

▪ Advancement of Soil Borings

▪ Analysis and Evaluation

▪ Documentation of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is located northwest of the canteen and fitness center. The project area is generally defined by the boring locations shown in Figure 2. We understand that construction will consist of a one-story, light gauge metal framing with split face masonry veneer building and parking lot. At the time this investigation was performed, plans for construction had not been completed.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The area has a ground cover consisting of grass, brush, and trees. The ground surface generally slopes toward the southeast at a grade of 12% or less. Surface mining has not occurred within the project area. Some clearing and limited grade work has occurred on the northwest and southwest sides.

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY

4.1 Geology and Groundwater

The Central City West Geologic Quadrangle Map (GQ-831) indicates that bedrock formations are of the Pennsylvanian Lisman and Carbondale Formations, generally consisting of interbedded sandstone, sandy shale, and shale with minor occurrences of coal and limestone beds.

Although extensive surface mining of the No. 11 and No. 12 coal seams has been conducted in surrounding areas, surface mining has not occurred within the project area. The Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System database indicates that underground mining of the No. 9 coal seam has occurred. Elevation of the old mine works is approximately 460

ft. amsl.

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204

The site is situated within an upland physiographic setting characterized by residual/ colluvial soils overlying weathered bedrock. Thickness of the soil cover is generally less than 15 feet. Soils typically consist of lean clays and silty clays. The transition between soil and non-weathered bedrock is often gradual. Transitional soils are often identified by relict bedding structures and/or weathered fragments of the underlying bedrock.

Experience by Associated Engineers, Inc. has found that groundwater flow within unconsolidated soil deposits is typically very restricted. Seasonal perched water can occur on fragipans or other low permeability layers and at the soil-bedrock interface.

Topography exerts the primary influence on groundwater flow within unconsolidated and shallow bedrock units with direction roughly corresponding to surface drainage direction.

In urban settings, buried utility lines, storm drains, and other factors can sometimes create localized conditions where subsurface water is excessive.

4.2 Seismicity

Muhlenberg County is affected by earthquakes from several seismic zones in the region.

The most important one is the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which roughly follows the course of the Mississippi River southward from Cairo, Illinois. A second area of notable seismic activity is the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone, which generally centers around the Wabash River valley in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana. We are not aware of any evidence that faults in Muhlenberg County have exhibited surface displacement or rupture in historic time.

Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System, http://minemaps.ky.gov.

Palmer, J.E., 1969, Geologic Map of the Central City West Quadrangle, Kentucky: U.S.

Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-831, scale 1:24,000.

5.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Drilling operations were conducted on 7/16/2026 and 7/17/2026. Locations are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 (DH-1 – DH-5). Exploration was accomplished with a TMG CSR 174 track-mounted rotary drill rig. The borings were advanced using hollow stem augers (ASTM D1452). Representative soil samples were obtained by the split-barrel (Standard Penetration Test) sampling procedure in accordance with ASTM D1586. Borings were advanced to auger refusal or to a depth in bedrock where further penetration would cause excessive wear on equipment.

Preliminary field logs were prepared by the driller. The logs included visual descriptions of the materials encountered during drilling based on split-barrel samples and drill cuttings.

Water level observations and moisture condition of samples were also made during the drilling operations. A field log was prepared for each boring.

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204

After completion of drilling operations and measuring water levels, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings to the existing grade.

The collected soil samples and cores were delivered to the office for evaluation and testing.

The Field Boring Reports included with this report (Appendix A) represent an interpretation of the field logs with modifications based on visual examination and manual tests by an engineering geologist in accordance with ASTM D2488. Material descriptions incorporate the Unified Soil Classification.

6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Bedrock

Depths to highly weathered bedrock, SPT refusal, and auger refusal are tabulated below:

Table 1: Depth to Highly Weathered Bedrock, SPT Refusal, and Auger Refusal

Boring

Surface Elev.

(ft.)

Highly Weathered

Bedrock Depth/Elev.

SPT Refusal Depth/Elev.

Auger Refusal/

Slow Advance Depth/Elev.

(ft.)

DH-1 511.02 4.0/507.02 5.4/505.62 9.2/501.82

DH-2 518.21 5.0/513.21 6.3/511.91 6.3/511.91

DH-3 521.54 3.5/518.04 8.1/513.44 8.2/513.34

DH-4 521.17 5.0/516.17 -- 8.5/512.67

DH-5 522.56 6.0/516.56 7.9/514.66 7.9/514.66

Highly weathered bedrock can exhibit N-values which are relatively high but are below the ASTM criteria for SPT refusal. Often, auger refusal occurs a few inches to a few feet below SPT refusal. In weathered shales, depth can be greater. Auger refusal generally corresponds to the limit of excavation using conventional, heavy-duty equipment. A hoe ram, ripper, or blasting may be necessary for excavations below this depth. Where slow advancement is denoted, auger refusal was not reached but penetration rate exhibited a marked decrease such that further advancement would cause excessive wear on the cutterhead. At this site the depth of slow advancement can be assumed to be equivalent to auger refusal.

Bedrock consists of highly weathered shale and sandy shale. Sandy shale is predominant.

Color is yellowish brown and gray. When pulverized, the weathered sandy shales and shales should exhibit engineering properties of lean clays.

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204

6.2 Soil and Groundwater

Although some variability was exhibited in color and sand content, all of the soils sampled on the site are lean clays (CL). Depth to weathered bedrock is provided in Table 1.

Lean clays have good bearing capacity when compacted to maximum density but lose much of this capacity when moisture is absorbed. They possess little internal friction and have low stability at higher moisture contents. Hence, fills and subgrades should be placed and maintained at relatively low moisture content. Based on test data and experience with similar materials, the lean clay soils on the site should have a low shrink swell potential of

1.5 % or less.

Free water was not encountered in any borings and no samples exhibiting free water were observed.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Foundations

Based on the findings of this geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that future construction at the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. No conditions were encountered which would preclude development or require unusual mitigation in comparison with similar areas in Muhlenberg County. We recommend that the final construction plans be reviewed by our firm. Supplemental geotechnical investigation may be needed after the proposed plans become available.

No areas of significant fill material or unsuitable soils were encountered.

Preliminary allowable bearing capacity recommendations are summarized below:

Table 2: Preliminary Allowable Bearing Capacity Recommendations

Subsurface Interval Recommended Allowable

Bearing Capacity (psf) Lean clay (CL) soils above 2.5 ft. 2,000* Lean clay (CL) soils from 2.5 ft. down to top of highly weathered shale/sandy shale bedrock 2,500 Highly weathered shale/sandy shale bedrock down to SPT refusal depth 8,000 Highly weathered shale/sandy shale bedrock below SPT refusal/slow advance depth 12,000

*Assumes weak soil areas remediated during site preparation.

The lean clay soils as well as excavated bedrock are acceptable for use as engineered fill if

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204 processed in accordance with Section 7.4, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf can be achieved.

External footings should be set at a minimum depth of 24 inches below final exterior grade to reduce the potential for frost penetration.

Design subgrades including basements should take into consideration the depths to auger refusal and slow advancement tabulated in Table 1.

Although this investigation did not disclose significant subsurface water, the potential for limited volumes to occur on impermeable soil layers or at the soil-bedrock interface cannot be ruled out. If encountered, inspection should be made by the geotechnical engineer and corrective actions taken as directed.

7.2 Seismic Considerations

The 2018 Kentucky Building Code incorporating Section 1613.3.2 of the 2015 International Building Code requires that the site be classified as Site Class A, B, C, D, E, or F in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10. Classification is based on the upper 100 ft. of the site profile. Where site-specific data are not available to a depth of 100 ft., appropriate soil properties are permitted to be estimated based on known geologic conditions. Where soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the site class, Site Class D shall be used unless the building official or geotechnical data determine Site Class E or F soils are present at the site.

After close examination, we have determined that no individual profiles are present which meet the criteria for Site Class F. Based on the average Standard Penetration Resistance criteria set forth in Section 20.4.2 of ASCE 7, the site is classified as Site Class C.

However, we have found that the Standard Penetration Resistance criteria are sometimes overly conservative. On-site shear wave velocity measurement prior to construction could possibly result in a Site Class B classification. Associated Engineers, Inc. can provide this service if requested.

7.3 Site Preparation

Construction operations should have the flexibility to accommodate changes mandated by the discovery of adverse conditions not detected during the geotechnical investigation.

Construction sites should be stripped, and topsoil stockpiled and protected from erosion for later use in planting of areas to be grassed. If the moisture content remains high when construction begins, the site should be disked, dried out, and re-compacted.

The exposed subgrade should be proof rolled prior to slab construction, pavement construction, or placement of engineered fill. The proof-rolling should be accomplished after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading the subgrade. Equipment should

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204 consist of a loaded dump truck or similar equipment judged acceptable by the geotechnical engineer. The proof-rolling equipment should make several passes over each section in at least two perpendicular directions. It is recommended that a representative of the geotechnical engineer observe the proof-rolling operations and provide suitable recommendations for any unstable or unsuitable conditions encountered. Soft, organic soils or unsatisfactory fill materials encountered during the proof-rolling operations should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill.

Should soft areas be encountered during grading operations, care should be used to prevent the occurrence of pumping. Wet materials can be manipulated and dried using farm cultivation equipment.

7.4 Fill Placement and Compaction

Compaction should be a minimum of 98% of Standard Proctor density (ASTM D-698) and within +/-2% of optimum moisture below and within the 10 ft. of structures. A minimum of 95% of Standard Proctor is acceptable for general fill in areas greater than 10 ft. outside of structures. Fill material should be placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Placement should be observed by the materials technician working under the general direction of the geotechnical engineer. In addition to visual evaluation, a sufficient number of field density tests should be performed to confirm that the required degree of compaction is achieved.

All engineered and processed fill should be free of rock or gravel larger than 3 inches in any dimension, lumps, debris, waste, vegetation, organics, topsoil, frozen soil, environmental contamination, or other deleterious material.

Alternate material for engineered fill required to achieve design grades or subgrades may consist of satisfactory soils. Satisfactory soils include ASTM D2487 soil classification groups GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SC, SM, SC-SM, and CL, or a combination of these group symbols; free of rock or gravel larger than 3 inches in any dimension, lumps, debris, waste, vegetation, organics, topsoil, frozen soil, environmental contamination, or other deleterious material.

Where dense grade, crushed stone, or other granular materials are used for engineered fill or base material, it is recommended that these be compacted to 98% of Standard Proctor Density. Alternate compaction criteria for granular materials may be used as approved by the geotechnical engineer.

Within small excavations in fill material, such as utility trenches, around manholes, or behind retaining walls, the use of “wackers”, “Rammax” compactors, or vibrating plate compactors is recommended to achieve the specified compaction. Loose lift thickness of 4 inches is recommended in small area fills.

Placement and compaction of engineered fill for structural applications should be

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204 monitored and tested by a qualified materials technician working under the direction of the geotechnical engineer.

7.5 Excavations

Excavations for external footings should be set at a minimum depth of 24 inches below final exterior grade to reduce the potential for frost penetration. Minimum width of continuous strip footings should not be less than 1.5 ft. and individual column foundations should be a minimum of 3 ft. x 3 ft. square regardless of actual bearing pressure.

Excavations should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer for the occurrence of wet soil and free water. If observed, corrective actions should be taken as directed. Additional discussion is found in Section 7.6.

Excavations should not be left open to allow the accumulation of surface water. If water does accumulate, it should be pumped out as soon as possible and wet soil removed.

If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the excavation could be extended deeper to suitable soils.

Excavated trenches should be sloped and/or shored as necessary to meet OSHA Standard 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart P. If sloping/shoring is required, the contractor’s competent person should evaluate the soils at the time of excavation and determine appropriate safety measures.

Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed 3H:1V unless additional evaluation is made to assess slope stability and erosion protection. Soil slopes should be covered for erosion protection, and a protective cover of vegetation should be established as soon as possible.

7.6 Grading and Drainage

The soils on the site exhibit significant loss of strength and volume change upon absorbing moisture. Site grading should be maintained such that positive drainage is promoted away from the construction area. All excavations should not be left open to allow the accumulation of water. If water does accumulate, water and wet subgrade material should be removed as soon as possible. When rain or snow is expected, the site should be "slicked" with a smooth-drum roller.

Slabs-on-grade should not be placed on soil material which is at moisture content greater than 2% above or lower than 2% below optimum moisture as determined by the Standard Proctor Test.

Finished exterior grades should be sloped to direct drainage away from buildings and structures to reduce surface water infiltration into the foundation subgrade materials.

Gutters and downspouts should be extended a minimum of 5 ft. away from the building

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204 perimeter and designed to outlet either down-gradient into an open channel, on to positively drained pavement areas, or into a storm drain.

Footing, floor, and pavement subgrades should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify bearing capacity and moisture condition.

7.7 Floor Slabs

If a mat foundation system is not selected, the following design parameters for floor slabs assume that all recommendations in Section 7.3 through 7.6 have been followed to ensure that the subgrade is properly prepared.

Table 3: Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Aggregate Base Course

Minimum 6 inch base of KYTC Dense Graded Aggregate

(DGA).

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k)

150 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in).

Compaction Requirements

98 percent of standard Proctor density or other appropriate method approved by the geotechnical engineer

Minimum Testing Frequency

One field density test per 5000 square feet with a minimum of three.

If possible, floor slabs should be “floating,” that is, fully ground supported and not structurally connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the potential for floor slab cracking because of differential movements between the slab and the foundation.

Slabs should be appropriately sized and reinforced to support the proposed loads.

The design should ensure that water does not accumulate below slabs. The granular material should be moist, but not wet, immediately prior to placement of concrete to reduce curling of the slab as the concrete is placed.

Floor slab subgrades are often disturbed by weather and construction activities between the completion of grading and slab construction; therefore, inspection by a representative of the geotechnical engineer is recommended prior to concrete placement.

7.8 Pavements

Site preparation is a critical aspect of pavement performance to insure that the sub-grade soils have sufficient strength and avoid deterioration from construction traffic and support the paving equipment. The completed pavement section must be designed to resist freeze/thaw cycles and wheel loads from traffic.

All pavements should be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.” In-place density, thickness, and gradation tests should be conducted by a representative of the geotechnical engineer during construction to ensure compliance with project specifications.

Design recommendations are provided for asphalt concrete based on KYTC-appropriate light duty loads. A soaked CBR value of 3 is considered to be conservatively representative of the site.

Based on site conditions and anticipated traffic volume, the pavement design below is recommended:

Table 4: Asphaltic Concrete Design

Material Thickness (inches)

Asphalt Surface 1.5

Asphalt Base 2

Aggregate Base (DGA) 8

8.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, 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. Associated Engineers, Inc. is not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others on the field explorations and laboratory test data presented in this report.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The report may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written permission of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Associated Engineers, Inc.

This report is limited in that the engineering recommendations are determined from information obtained from test borings, samples, and laboratory soil tests indicating subsurface conditions at the particular location, date, times, and depths shown on the boring logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from those encountered in the test borings. Different periods during the year may cause the soil conditions to change from those described in this report.

Changes in the subsurface conditions at the site may not become evident until the course of construction. Construction monitoring by the geotechnical engineer or his representative is recommended to verify the subsurface conditions and to check that the soils connected construction phases are properly carried out. If other than minor changes are found, it may be necessary to review the recommendations of this report.

Greenville, Kentucky AEI Project #26-0204

If the project characteristics are altered from those discussed in this report, if the project information contained in this report is incorrect, or if additional information becomes available, a review by this office is recommended to determine if any modification of geotechnical parameters is needed.

This report does not include any determinations of the existence of hazardous or toxic materials from samples and observation of the materials encountered during drilling, sampling, and testing. Surface and/or groundwater conditions encountered on the site at the times noted are shown on the boring logs included as Appendix A to this report.

Site

FILE NAME:

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT #:

DATE:

8/12/2026

26-0204

LCG

JSL

DRAWN BY:

Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map

Barracks Geotechnical Investigation Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center

Greenville, Kentucky

0' 100' 200' 400'

DH-3 Elev. 521.54

DH-4 Elev. 521.17

DH-5 Elev. 522.56

DH-2 Elev. 518.21

DH-1 Elev. 511.02

FILE NAME:

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT #:

DATE:

7/29/2026

26-0204

LCG

JSL

DRAWN BY:

Figure 2 Boring Location Map

Barracks Geotechnical Investigation Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center

Greenville, Kentucky

0' 50' 100' 200'

Image from Google Image

APPENDIX A

Field Boring Reports

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

Ref

Ref

Ref

Topsoil and lean clay.

Lean clay (CL), yellowish brown, trace fine roots, medium stiff, moist.

Sandy shale, yellowish brown and gray, highly weathered, very soft, moist.

Sandy shale, yellowish brown and gray, highly weathered, soft, moist.

510.02 1.0

507.02 4.0

506.02 5.0

501.82 9.2

SPT 1-3-4

SPT 9-13-22

SPT 26/5"-10/0"

5.4 SPT refusal

SPT 10-15/1"-10/0"

7.6 SPT refusal

SPT 15/2"-10/0"

9.2 SPT refusal

9.2 Boring terminated. Slow advance.

FIELD BORING REPORT

CLIENT: Division of Engineering and Contract Management BORING NO.: DH-1

PROJECT: Barracks Geotechnical Investigation DATE STARTED: 7-16-26

LOCATION: Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center, Greenville KY DATE COMPLETED: 7-16-26

PROJECT NO.: 26-0204 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 511.02

DRILLER: Z. Paul RIG NO.: CSR 174 WEATHER: Sunny

CASING DIA.: CORE DIA.: SHELBY TUBE O.D.:

WATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE Dry , COMPLETION Dry , HRS./DAYS AFTER COMPLETION CAVED:

BORING COORDINATES> NORTH: EAST: STATION:

ABBREVIATIONS: HSA- Hollow Stem Auger SFA- Solid Flight Auger HA- Hand Auger SPT- Standard Penetration Test SS- Split Spoon ST- Shelby Tube BS- Bulk/Auger Cutting Sample WH- Weight of Hammer RD- Rotary Drilling RC- Rock Core UCS- Unc. Comp. Strength M- Moisture CR- Core Recovery RQD- Rock Quality Designation

D E

P T

H , F

T

S A

M P

L E

S

S P

T N

-V A

L U

E

R Q

D

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D C

O M

P R

E S

S

IV

E S

T R

E N

G T

H

P S

F

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION/DESCRIPTION

S Y

M B

O L

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

D

E P

T H

, F T

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SPT

SPT

SPT

Ref

Topsoil and lean clay.

Lean clay (CL), dark yellowish brown and yellowish brown, trace roots, stiff, moist.

Lean clay (CL), yellowish brown, very stiff, moist.

Sandy shale, yellowish brown and gray, highly weathered, very soft, moist.

517.21 1.0

515.21 3.0

513.21 5.0

511.91 6.3

SPT 6-4-6

SPT 7-7-9

SPT 7-12-20/3"

6.3 SPT refusal

6.3 Auger refusal

FIELD BORING REPORT

CLIENT: Division of Engineering and Contract Management BORING NO.: DH-2

PROJECT: Barracks Geotechnical Investigation DATE STARTED: 7-16-26

LOCATION: Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center, Greenville KY DATE COMPLETED: 7-16-26

PROJECT NO.: 26-0204 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 518.21

DRILLER: Z. Paul RIG NO.: CSR 174 WEATHER: Sunny

CASING DIA.: CORE DIA.: SHELBY TUBE O.D.:

WATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE Dry , COMPLETION Dry , HRS./DAYS AFTER COMPLETION CAVED:

BORING COORDINATES> NORTH: EAST: STATION:

ABBREVIATIONS: HSA- Hollow Stem Auger SFA- Solid Flight Auger HA- Hand Auger SPT- Standard Penetration Test SS- Split Spoon ST- Shelby Tube BS- Bulk/Auger Cutting Sample WH- Weight of Hammer RD- Rotary Drilling RC- Rock Core UCS- Unc. Comp. Strength M- Moisture CR- Core Recovery RQD- Rock Quality Designation

D E

P T

H , F

T

S A

M P

L E

S

S P

T N

-V A

L U

E

R Q

D

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D C

O M

P R

E S

S

IV

E S

T R

E N

G T

H

P S

F

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION/DESCRIPTION

S Y

M B

O L

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

D

E P

T H

, F T

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

Ref

Topsoil, lean clay, gravel.

Lean clay (CL), brown, stiff, moist.

Sandy shale (CL), yellowish brown and gray, highly weathered, very soft, moist.

520.54 1.0

518.04 3.5

513.34 8.2

SPT 3-3-7

SPT 18-19-18

SPT 13-22-33

SPT 10-43-16/1"-10/0"

8.1 SPT refusal

8.2 Auger refusal

FIELD BORING REPORT

CLIENT: Division of Engineering and Contract Management BORING NO.: DH-3

PROJECT: Barracks Geotechnical Investigation DATE STARTED: 7-17-26

LOCATION: Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center, Greenville KY DATE COMPLETED: 7-17-26

PROJECT NO.: 26-0204 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 521.54

DRILLER: Z. Paul RIG NO.: CSR 174 WEATHER: Sunny

CASING DIA.: CORE DIA.: SHELBY TUBE O.D.:

WATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE Dry , COMPLETION Dry , 24 Hr HRS./DAYS AFTER COMPLETION Dry CAVED: 1.1

BORING COORDINATES> NORTH: EAST: STATION:

ABBREVIATIONS: HSA- Hollow Stem Auger SFA- Solid Flight Auger HA- Hand Auger SPT- Standard Penetration Test SS- Split Spoon ST- Shelby Tube BS- Bulk/Auger Cutting Sample WH- Weight of Hammer RD- Rotary Drilling RC- Rock Core UCS- Unc. Comp. Strength M- Moisture CR- Core Recovery RQD- Rock Quality Designation

D E

P T

H , F

T

S A

M P

L E

S

S P

T N

-V A

L U

E

R Q

D

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D C

O M

P R

E S

S

IV

E S

T R

E N

G T

H

P S

F

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION/DESCRIPTION

S Y

M B

O L

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

D

E P

T H

, F T

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

Topsoil and lean clay.

Lean clay (CL), brown, trace fine roots, stiff, moist.

Sandy lean clay (CL), yellowish brown and gray, trace roots and shale fragments, very stiff, moist.

Sandy shale, yellowish brown and gray, highly weathered, very soft, moist.

Shale, yellowish brown, highly weathered, soft, moist.

520.67 0.5

518.17 3.0

516.17 5.0

514.17 7.0

512.67 8.5

SPT 3-3-6

SPT 7-12-12

SPT 7-28-24

SPT 15-46-40

8.5 Boring terminated. Slow advance.

FIELD BORING REPORT

CLIENT: Division of Engineering and Contract Management BORING NO.: DH-4

PROJECT: Barracks Geotechnical Investigation DATE STARTED: 7-16-26

LOCATION: Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center, Greenville KY DATE COMPLETED: 7-16-26

PROJECT NO.: 26-0204 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 521.17

DRILLER: Z. Paul RIG NO.: CSR 174 WEATHER: Sunny

CASING DIA.: CORE DIA.: SHELBY TUBE O.D.:

WATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE Dry , COMPLETION Dry , HRS./DAYS AFTER COMPLETION CAVED:

BORING COORDINATES> NORTH: EAST: STATION:

ABBREVIATIONS: HSA- Hollow Stem Auger SFA- Solid Flight Auger HA- Hand Auger SPT- Standard Penetration Test SS- Split Spoon ST- Shelby Tube BS- Bulk/Auger Cutting Sample WH- Weight of Hammer RD- Rotary Drilling RC- Rock Core UCS- Unc. Comp. Strength M- Moisture CR- Core Recovery RQD- Rock Quality Designation

D E

P T

H , F

T

S A

M P

L E

S

S P

T N

-V A

L U

E

R Q

D

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D C

O M

P R

E S

S

IV

E S

T R

E N

G T

H

P S

F

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION/DESCRIPTION

S Y

M B

O L

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

D

E P

T H

, F T

SPT

SPT

SPT

SPT

Ref

Topsoil.

Lean clay (CL), brown, medium stiff, moist.

Lean clay (CL), yellowish brown, very stiff, moist.

Sandy shale, yellowish brown and gray, highly weathered, very soft, moist.

522.06 0.5

519.56 3.0

516.56 6.0

514.66 7.9

SPT 3-3-4

SPT 6-7-9

SPT 4-10-15

SPT 25-27/5"- 10/0"

7.9 SPT refusal.

7.9 Boring terminated. Slow advance.

FIELD BORING REPORT

CLIENT: Division of Engineering and Contract Management BORING NO.: DH-5

PROJECT: Barracks Geotechnical Investigation DATE STARTED: 7-17-26

LOCATION: Wendell H. Ford Regional Training Center, Greenville KY DATE COMPLETED: 7-17-26

PROJECT NO.: 26-0204 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEV.: 522.56

DRILLER: Z. Paul RIG NO.: CSR 174 WEATHER: Sunny

CASING DIA.: CORE DIA.: SHELBY TUBE O.D.:

WATER DEPTH: IMMEDIATE Dry , COMPLETION Dry , 24Hr HRS./DAYS AFTER COMPLETION Dry CAVED: 3.6

BORING COORDINATES> NORTH: EAST: STATION:

ABBREVIATIONS: HSA- Hollow Stem Auger SFA- Solid Flight Auger HA- Hand Auger SPT- Standard Penetration Test SS- Split Spoon ST- Shelby Tube BS- Bulk/Auger Cutting Sample WH- Weight of Hammer RD- Rotary Drilling RC- Rock Core UCS- Unc. Comp. Strength M- Moisture CR- Core Recovery RQD- Rock Quality Designation

D E

P T

H , F

T

S A

M P

L E

S

S P

T N

-V A

L U

E

R Q

D

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D C

O M

P R

E S

S

IV

E S

T R

E N

G T

H

P S

F

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION/DESCRIPTION

S Y

M B

O L

E L

E V

A T

IO

N

D

E P

T H

, F T

APPENDIX B

Unified Soil Classification System

APPENDIX C

General Notes

GENERAL NOTES

DRILLING & SAMPLING

Symbols

SS Split Spoon – 1 3/8” I.D., 2” O.D. SFA Solid Flight Auger RC Rock Core with Diamond Bit, SPT Standard Penetration Test HA Hand Auger NQ size, except where noted HSA Hollow Stem Auger PA Power Auger CR Core Recovery (%) ST Shelby Tube – 3” O.D, except where RD Rotary Drilling RQD Rock Quality Designation noted RS Rotary Cutting Sample PP Pocket Penetrometer BS Bulk/Auger Sample WH Weight of Hammer N/A Not applicable or not available

Standard Penetration Test “N” Value – Blows per foot after an initial 6 inch seating of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted.

Water Level Measurement Notations & Symbols Water Levels

Immediate When noted during drilling or These levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured sampling process. in the boring at the time indicated. The accurate determination of ground water levels may not be possible with short term Completion After all drilling tools are removed observations, especially in impervious soils. The levels shown from borehole. may fluctuate throughout the year with variation in precipitation, evaporation, runoff, and other hydrogeologic factors.

HR Number of hours after completion.

Strata Changes

NR Not recorded.

Boundaries between strata shown in “Material Classification/

Dry No measurable water level found. Description” may be approximate.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Particle Sizes

Boulder Greater than 12” Sand Coarse No. 10 to No. 4 Silt Minus No. 200 Cobbles 3” to 12” 2.00 mm to 4.75 mm .005 mm to .075 mm Gravel Coarse ¾-in to 3-in Medium No. 40 to No. 10 Clay Less than .005 mm

4.75 mm to 75 mm 425 mm to 2.00 mm Fine No. 4 to ¾-in Fine No. 200 to No. 40

4.75 mm to 75 mm .075 mm to .425 mm

Coarse Grained Soils Fine Grained Soils

SPT Unconfined Compressive Descriptive Term No. Blows/Ft. Descriptive Term Penetration Strength

Standard Pen. Test (blows/ ft.) (Tons per Sq. Ft.)

Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft <2 <0.25 Loose 4-10 Soft 2-4 0.25-0.50 Firm (Medium Dense) 10-30 Plastic (Medium Stiff) 4-8 0.50-1.00 Dense 30-50 Stiff 8-15 1.00-2.00 Very Dense > 50 Very Stiff 15-30 2.00-4.00

Hard >30 over 4.00

Soil Constituents Soil Description Terminology

Trace Less than 15% If clay content is sufficient so that clay appears to dominate soil properties With or trace to some 15% to 29% then clay becomes primary noun with the other major soil constituent as Some 30% to 50% modifiers i.e., silty clay. Other minor constituents may be added according Mostly 51% to 100% to estimates of soil constituents present, i.e., silty clay with sand.

GENERAL NOTES

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

Weathering

Grade Symbol

F

FW

SW

MW

HW

CW

S

Diagnostic Features

No discoloration, loss of strength, or any other effects due to weathering.

No discoloration between discontinuities; however, surfaces of discontinuities are discolored or stained.

Slight discoloration inwards from discontinuities. Intact rock not noticeably weathered.

Discoloration throughout rock mass. Intact rock noticeably weaker than fresh rock.

Original fabric of rock near discontinuities altered. Rock material partially friable.

Rock discolored and changed to soil-like material with the original fabric mainly presser preserved. Rock material friable.

Rock discolored and completely changed to a soil; original rock fabric completely destroyed.

Criteria Core, fragment, or exposure cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick; can only be chipped with repeated heavy hammer blows.

Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Core or fragment breaks with repeated heavy hammer blows.

Can be scratched with knife or sharp pick with difficulty (heavy pressure). Heavy hammer blow required to break specimen.

Can be scratched with knife or sharp pick with light or moderate pressure. Core or fragment breaks with moderate hammer blow.

Can be grooved 1/16 inch (2 mm) deep by knife or sharp pick with moderate or heavy pressure.

Core or fragment breaks with light hammer blow or heavy manual pressure.

Can be grooved or gouged easily by knife or sharp pick with light pressure, can be scratched with fingernail. Breaks with light to moderate manual pressure.

Can be readily indented, grooved or gouged with fingernail, or carved with a knife. Breaks with light manual pressure.

Criteria (excludes mechanical breaks)

Fresh

Faintly weathered

Slightly Weathered

Moderately Weathered

Highly Weathered

Completely Weathered

Soil

Hardness

Descriptor

Extremely hard

Very hard

Hard

Moderately Hard

Moderately Soft

Soft

Very soft

Fracture Density Descriptors

Descriptor

Unfractured

Slightly fractured

Moderately fractured

Intensely fractured

Very intensely fractured

No observed fractures.

Core recovered mostly in lengths from 1 to 3 feet (300 to 1,000 mm) with few scattered lengths less than 1 foot (300 mm) or greater than 3 feet (1,000 mm).

Core recovered mostly in lengths from 0.33 to 1.0 foot (100 to 300 mm) with most lengths about 0.67 foot (200 mm).

Lengths average from 0.1 to 0.33 foot (30 to 100 mm) with fragmented intervals. Core recovered mostly in lengths less than 0.33 foot (100 mm).

Core recovered mostly as chips and fragments with a few scattered short core lengths.

Combinations of fracture densities are permissible where equal distribution of both fracture density characteristics are present over a significant core interval or exposure, or where characteristics are “in between” the descriptor definitions.

Fractures

Code Descriptor Angle from Horizontal

H Horizontal 0-10 LD Low Diagonal 10-45 HD High Diagonal 45-80 V Vertical 80-90 N No Fracture B Brecciated or Fault Gouge

Descriptions apply only to naturally occurring fractures. Fractures caused by handling are not considered.

Rock Quality Designation (ROD)

Quality ROD RQD = LT – P Where: Lr = Length of core recovered

⎯⎯⎯ x 100 Ld = Length of core drilled Excellent 90 – 100% Ld Ll = Length of core loss Good 75 – 90% P = Length of core pieces 2D Fair 50 – 75% Only natural fractures considered. D = Diameter of core Poor 25 – 50% Stratum-based calculation used unless Very Poor 25% otherwise specified (See ASTM D6032).

Core Recovery (%)

Recovery (%) = Lt – x 100 Ld

Continuity Percentage

Description Core Recoveries

Incompetent Less than 40 Competent 40 – 70 Fairly Continuous 70 – 90 Continuous 90 - 100

Bedding Descriptors

Descriptors

Massive

Thickness/spacing

Greater than 10 ft Very thickly bedded 3 to 10 ft Thickly 1 to 3 ft Moderately 0.3 to 1 ft Thinly 0.1 to 0.3 ft Very thinly 0.03 [3/8 in.] to 0.1 ft Laminated Less than 0.03 ft [3/8 in]

APPENDIX D

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

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

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

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

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

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include:

• the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences;

• the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria;

• the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and

• other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

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

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

• for a different client;

• for a different project;

• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.

Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members,

• help develop specifications,

• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and

• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.

Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.

Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.