CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project Spring 2008 ODOT Henry ... · PDF fileProject Manager 2 Ohio Department of Transportation ... 15% before the year 2011. ... and those proposed by ODOT

The University of Toledo College of Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project

Spring 2008

ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations


ii

Disclaimer

This report is student work. The contents of this report reflect the views of the students who

are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do

not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Toledo or the Ohio Department of

Transportation. The recommendations, drawings and specifications in this report should not

be used without consulting a professional engineer.


iii

Table of Contents

Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................................3

Constraints .......................................................................................................................................6

Design ..............................................................................................................................................7

Site Layout................................................................................................................................7

Building ..................................................................................................................................15

Water Management ................................................................................................................21

Economics ......................................................................................................................................26

People Contacted ...........................................................................................................................27

Site Visits ........................................................................................................................................28

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. App-1


iv

Acknowledgements

The design team would like to acknowledge the professionals who provided assistance in

this project. Their efforts made much of the design possible, and the project could not have been

completed without them. The design team is greatly appreciates the guidance and support that

has been given.

Ms. Bernadette Barth, P.E. – ODOT

Craig Schneiderbauer – ODOT

Dr. Cyndee Gruden, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering

Dr. Douglas Nims, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering

Dr. Brian Randolph, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering

Dr. Andrew Heydinger, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering

Ryan Crawford – InterClean Equipment Inc.

Davis Construction Building Movers

Harmon Building Movers

Jill Leonello – Olympia Steel Buildings

Tony Kern – Westfield Electric

Jeff Nelson – Innovative Lighting Systems

Mike Livingston – Rudolph Libbe Inc.

Tanushree Sinha – OEPA

Patricia Tebbe – OEPA

Alex Smaili – OEPA

Chad Lulfs, P.E., P.S. – City of Napoleon


1

Introduction

Spring Semester 2008

Team Members:

Abdallah Ahmed

Evan DiSanto

Mark Hall

Matt Longfield

Chet Manz

Ben Perry

Adam Szabo

Faculty Mentors:

Cyndee Gruden Ph.D., PE

Assistant Professor

[email protected]

Douglas Nims Ph.D., PE

Associate Professor

[email protected]

ODOT Contact:

Ms. Bernadette Barth, P.E.

Project Manager 2

Ohio Department of Transportation

[email protected]

(419)-373-4343

Craig Schneiderbauer

Henry County Garage Manager

[email protected]

(419) 592-1838

Problem Statement:

ODOT’s Henry County Highway Garage is in need of

renovations in the areas of the building, site layout, and

water management. The goal is to provide the garage

workers with an adequate and efficient retrofit to their

facility to bring it up to present standards. The provided

outline details some of the issues that were identified

during the group visit to the facility.

Objectives:

Redesign of site layout to improve efficiency of

space and traffic flow.

Redesign of pavement for maximum longevity

and minimum amount of maintenance.

Maximization of space in ODOT Office/Garage.

Recommend techniques and practices to help

achieve energy reduction mandate.

Minimize water runoff and address water

management issues to meet EPA regulations.

Constraints:

Remediate current site

Budget comparison to cost of new facility.

State mandated energy reduction of 15% by

2011.

OEPA stringent requirements for water runoff

management

Maintain operational working conditions within

the proposed design options

Provide garage space for a minimum of 13

tandem axle trucks.

Provide paved parking areas for 50 cars.

mailto:[email protected]





2

Solution Approach:

In the development of the proposal, innovative methods will be investigated to address

the current problems within the facility while considering the given constraints. During this

process, the budget will be understood and all possible efforts will be made to maintain an

engineer’s social responsibility. The provided solutions will focus on the following issues.

Improve the general layout and operational efficiency of the site.

Address the water intake system and manage water discharge from the site.

Renovate the main building and garage to accommodate space requirements and worker

comfort.

Schedule and Person Loading

Request for proposal submittal to ODOT will be on February 15th

. A draft of the final

report will be presented to ODOT on April 17th

. The final presentation will be displayed on

April 24th

. The final report will be submitted on May 1st.

The loading of each group member shall be approximately 160 hours of work.

Conclusion and Recommendations

All the design options presented address the issues and fit within the constraints.

Reference the design documents for drawings, specifications, and recommendations of each.


3

Problem Statement

There are many issues that need to be addressed concerning the Henry County Highway

Garage. From the site visit to ODOT’s Henry County Garage, it is apparent that there are several

problems that can be addressed to retrofit the facility to provide a more efficient and worker

friendly environment. Specifically, there are numerous civil engineering related problems that

will be investigated in order to improve the facility. The design team will use their engineering

abilities to provide innovative, cost effective and safe ways to resolve the current problems. The

provided outline details some of the issues that were identified during the group visit to the

facility. A plan view drawing can be seen if Figure 1 of the existing site.

1. Site Layout

There is an inadequate amount of storage on the site. There are many pieces of

equipment that are currently being stored outside due to lack of space. In

addition, the equipment storage buildings need concrete slab floors as the

equipment is currently sitting on dirt and gravel. The lighting is poor and bird

droppings are causing sanitary problems. There is a need for heating and

insulation in the buildings.

There are currently three salt sheds and one dome on site. This setup uses more

room than is necessary. With the current layout, rain is able to enter the salt

buildings. This washes the salt away, which is a concern to the OEPA. Thus, a

method must be incorporated to minimize this occurrence. In addition, the roof

and truss system may need to be replaced due to corrosion and dry rot of the

wood.

The actual layout of the site is ineffective. The traffic flow in and out of the site

leads to operational inefficiencies. There is an insufficient amount of parking

spaces. As currently situated, the parking spaces are too small in size and

number.

The pavement is cracked very badly and requires redesign. The logistics of the

parking lot are not very good. Traffic flow patterns and lack of manueverability

for the trucks congest the site frequently. The gasoline pumps are used constantly

by the trucks and are only accessible from one side, which adds to the congestion.

More space is needed and the turning radius of the trucks needs to be taken into

account in the new design.

2. Building

Office Space – There is insufficient room to accommodate the employees

working at the facility. There has been a request to double the size of the offices

and at least triple the size of the break room. The break room is often used as a

meeting room, however there is not enough room for everyone to sit. In addition,

the locker room for the workers is located in the hallway that is too short and

narrow.

Garage – The space for the trucks to park is inadequate and three additional trucks

need to be accommodated as a result of the expansion of State Route 24.

Mechanics Garage – There is not enough space to accommodate the large trucks.

The mechanic needs an office and there is inadequate storage for parts.


4

ODOT and all state agencies have been ordered to reduce energy consumption by

15% before the year 2011.

There is a significant amount of heat loss every time the door opens. Methods

and practices to minimize heat loss need to be implemented. This system should

ensure that the garage maintains a minimum operating temperature of 50o

F. This

will aid in meeting the energy mandate from the state.

3. Water

The drainage in the garage is insufficient. All water ends up in the leach field

which is not a satisfactory practice according to the OEPA due to the

environmental impact caused by the particulate and soluble pollutants.

The building does not have city water tap available and insead uses a small

collection pond in the back of the lot as its source. The water purification system

does receive any confidence from the workers. For example, the water treated by

the system is not consumed by any of the workers and drinking bottled water is a

common practice. A new system will be necessary to facilitate a healthier

working environment.


5

Figure 1: Existing Site Layout


6

Constraints:

The Henry County Highway Garage retrofit has constraints that are physical, regulatory,

and those proposed by ODOT. The physical constraints are obvious. The size and existing

layout present many challenges for a retrofit of the facility. The site is relatively small and

options for modifications to the existing layout are minimal. The regulatory constraints are

straightforward. The OEPA does not allow high concentrations of salt, oil, and grease from the

trucks to be discharged into the environment without treatment. Other building codes must be

adhered to in the designs. In addition, the state government has mandated that energy

consumption be reduced by 15% by 2011. ODOT has supplied the design group with several

constraints as well. These include the need for the retrofit cost to be significantly lower than the

estimated $5 million for a new facility. A requirement of a minimum of 50 parking spaces for

standard sized vehicles must be available on site. The truck garages must be able to

accommodate at least 3 new tandem axle trucks in addition to the current fleet. Lastly, ODOT

requests that the working environment for the employees be considered. This includes providing

comfortable working space and reasonable, standard working atmosphere.


7

Design

The Henry County Highway Garage has a significant range of issues and problems that

require attention. To maintain simplicity and consistency, the design team is proposing two

cohesive design alternatives for the facility. The first option is a cost effective option, which has

the goal of addressing the current issues with the minimum required work and cost. In this

design, modifications were only made where necessary. The second option is an ideal option,

which is aimed at providing optimum efficiency and functionality for the site. Several of the

proposed solutions are redundant to each option. In reality, many of the alternatives presented in

these two options are interchangeable. This is to offer a broad prospective of several alternatives

that can be used to retrofit the facility.

Site Layout

As currently situated, the site layout is ineffective and inefficient. Much of this is due to

poor traffic routing on the site. Currently, ODOT plow trucks can only fill their gas tanks from

one side of the pump. This causes congestion during snow events. In addition, there is a

concrete island installed to protect the gas tanks, which are currently blocks access to one side of

the pump. This setup causes advanced deterioration of the pavement. Entering and exiting the

site is yet another problem for the trucks due to insufficient turning radii throughout the site. An

additional traffic problem is the existence of lawn islands that severely block truck traffic and

civilian cars.

Along with the traffic flow issues, there are other layout inefficiencies. One of the key

identified issues with the site is the existence of three salt sheds on the western part of the site.

The configuration of the three buildings uses more space than is necessary. Consolidation of the

salt sheds will help to free valuable site space. The same reasoning applies with the equipment

sheds. Moving these sheds to a more permanent location will help improve the functionality of

the site layout.

The site layout design aims to correct these inefficiencies. The problems are addressed in

the proposed designs. Many of the researched site layout designs are implemented in both

options. These compatible solutions are presented prior to individual options. The plan view of

each layout can be viewed in Appendix I-H.

Combined Option I and Option II

There are three solutions to the site layout that are combined and will be implemented in

both options. The first solution is the pavement design for the site. Along with conventional

pavement design, the design team also researched permeable pavement and geosynthetic

reinforcement. Additionally, an automatic truck wash is recommended in each option. Finally,

salt dome reconfiguration is required in each.


8

Pavement

Due to the current condition of the pavement on site, it has been deemed unacceptable

and will be replaced. Heavy duty pavement was specified to combat the accelerated pavement

deterioration caused by the trucks. Additionally, a parking area for standard size vehicles was

specified with its own regular asphalt design to help minimize costs. The new pavement will

cover the entire drivable area of the site. Pavement design and drawings will can be found in

Appendix I-A.

One alternative to having conventional pavement is the use of porous pavement. This

can be seen typically in areas that contain lighter traffic such. Porous pavement includes a

porous material that allows water to drain into the stone bed beneath it and infiltrate into the soil.

Suspended solids, metals, oil and grease are removed as the water passes through. Instead of

releasing rainfall and other runoff into the storm sewers, the pavement will allow the entering

water to replenish the water table and aquifers. This is pleasing to the EPA, as it will be help

reduce any runoff issues.

The makeup of porous pavement is different than that of conventional pavement. It

contains a Portland cement binder and aggregates. Fine aggregates are emitted, which allows for

empty spaces. These empty spaces are either filled with porous aggregate or soil mixed with

grass seed. High infiltration and air exchange rates are direct result of the high porosity. This is

beneficial for the environment and energy savings.

Porous pavement may not always be the best choice for use. It is dependent upon several

criteria of the site that it will be used on. The in-situ properties of the soil are significant in

determining whether porous pavement can be used. For example, the sub-base soil must have a

high permeability so that the water can filter through. Otherwise, during the winter months,

freezing and thawing can become major issues for the unfiltered water. Another problem that

can occur is the clogging of the porous pavement due to excessive contaminants in the runoff

water. This can especially be a problem at the ODOT garage due to the large amounts of salt,

oil, and grease that can develop on the surface. It would not be feasible to use porous pavement

on the areas where the large trucks will drive due to the clogging that can occur from the heavy

loadings. It would be better to use it on areas such as parking. Porous pavement is a great,

innovative design for dealing with water issues on pavement. However, it does not seem feasible

to use it on the ODOT garage site.

Another pavement alternative investigated was the use of geosynthetic materials to

reinforce the pavement. Several advantages were identified. The strength increase is an obvious

advantage. They can be installed very quickly with minimal extra labor when laying down

asphalt. Geosynthetics are also more sustainable than traditional excavation and construction.

They reduce the use of natural resources and environmental damage caused by quarrying,

trucking, and other material handling activities. They also take up less space in a landfill than

traditional soil and aggregate layers. Geosynthetic materials are proven to be versatile and cost

effective ground modification materials. They can be applied to subgrade separation and

stabilization, base reinforcement, overlay stress absorption, and overlay reinforcement.


9

Concrete Slabs

Concrete slabs were designed for the truck wash, storage sheds and the mechanics’

garage. ODOT identified the storage sheds as a high priority for the installation of the slabs.

The new slabs will provide a better environment to maintain the machinery in good working

condition. Each of the slabs was calculated using the ODOT Pavement Design and

Rehabilitation Manual. The slab calculations can be found in Appendix I-B.

Automatic Truck Wash

To aid in addressing the issue of the salt runoff coming from the site, the design team

specified the installation of an automatic truck wash. This system will collect the majority of the

salt that is washed from the trucks and prevent it from entering the surrounding environment.

This will alleviate a major OEPA concern about the site.

The automatic truck wash selected is supplied through InterClean Equipment Inc. The

InterClean system has a proven performance record with the Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation and Turnpike Commission. The company is accessible via the internet, and was

contacted to determine a suitable and competitive alternative for the site. The InterClean system

utilizes high pressure pumps to thoroughly wash the vehicles. The system is designed to

completely wash and de-salt trucks in a time of approximately 90 seconds. Not only will this

system improve washing efficiency, it will also greatly reduce the man hours currently used to

rinse and wash trucks. The welfare of the workers will improve as well since the hassles of truck

washing will not have to be dealt with. The time saved by using this wash system will allow

workers to spend their time doing more productive activities. Due to the water scarcity on site,

any automatic truck wash would have to provide water recycling capabilities. Consequently, the

selected InterClean system recycles 85% of the wash water used. See Table 1 for a feasibility

analysis of the truck wash. Additionally, Appendix I-C contains quantitative data of the current

and future operational costs of the system.


10

Table 1: Automatic Truck Wash Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility Analysis

Do Nothing

Total $71,426.09 dollar/yr $71,426.09 dollar/year

InterClean System - Cost Effective Option

Total Wash Costs/ Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year

Investment $196,468.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $23,084.99 dollar/year

Building $30,000.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $3,525.00 dollar/year

Annual Operating and Maintenance $25,000.00 dollar/year $25,000.00 dollar/year

Total $58,953.07 dollar/year

InterClean System – Ideal Option

Total Wash Costs/Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year





Salt Domes

The current layout of the salt domes is inefficient and blocking space that could be better

utilized. To make room for new buildings, the two salt sheds will be demolished. This loss

causes a shortage of salt storage on the site. Therefore, it is logical to construct a larger dome on

the site. This negates the usefulness of the one remaining dome, so it will be razed as well. The

removing and consolidating of the domes will provide required space for a separate wash bay to

be constructed.

The proposed dome will be situated at the current site of the sheds between the side

entrances. This dome should have a door or other covering on the front to prevent salt runoff

during wet weather events. The new dome will be prefabricated and will have the capacity to

meet the 1000 ton demand for the facility. This style of dome has a 50-foot diameter dome with

a 6 inch concrete slab. The cost estimate of the dome can be clearly located in the cost estimate

for Option I and II. A schematic of a typical dome can be found in Appendix I-D.

Gas Pumps and Storage Tanks

Finally, the present layout of the gas pumps does not mesh with the proposed traffic flow.

This is due to the grade difference of the concrete slab located over the tanks. Hence, the pumps

are only accessible from one side and traffic congestion ensues. To remove this slab and lower

the pumps, new codes would have to be followed and a high cost would be incurred. To avoid

retrofitting the tanks, the design team recommends that the surrounding pavement grade be

raised to meet the slab grade.

In the concrete slab calculations for the storage sheds, the thickest slab needed to support

the weight of the trucks and machines is a 6 inch, mesh reinforced slab. The tanks already have

a 6 inch steel reinforced slab over them, along with 2 feet of specified backfill. This slab will be


11

stronger than the one designed for the storage sheds. Hence, it will be sufficient for the trucks to

safely pass over them without any damage to the gas tanks.

Option I – Cost Effective Option

The cost effective option aims for a less expensive, less involved redesign. For the site

layout, minimal alterations were made to modify the existing site. This is to keep costs as low as

possible while addressing the outlined problems. The remaining areas in the site layout for

Option I are the automatic truck wash building, the storage sheds, and parking. The plan view

drawing for Option I can be seen in Figure 2 and in Appendix I-H.

Figure 2: Option I Site Layout


12

Automatic Truck Wash Building

A building to house the automatic truck wash is a necessity. The design team contacted

Olympia Steel Buildings for a quote on a prefabricated building to accommodate the truck wash.

The building will be located on western side of the site, south of the existing garage. A

prefabricated option was chosen because it saves on consulting fees involved with a designed

building. A clear span frame was chosen to provide maximum space for the trucks in the

building. The details of the prefabricated truck wash building can be seen in Appendix I-E.

Storage Sheds

The cost effective option will also attempt to maximize site space without the demolition

and reconstruction of new storage sheds. The northern most shed will be lifted and moved to a

new location with the other to form an “L” shape. Additionally, the sheds will have new

concrete slab floors to protect vehicles and other equipment kept in the sheds. The calculations

for these slabs can be found in Appendix I-B. Two companies were contacted for price quotes to

move the storage sheds; one local and one national. This was done to give a more accurate

estimate for the relocation.

Parking

Parking was the next issue addressed for the site. 56 parking spaces were provided for

current and future employees at the ODOT facility to use. There are enough spaces to

accommodate 2 spaces per employee and additional visitors. The parking was situated so as to

minimize truck/car conflict. Furthermore, adequate space was left around the spaces for trucks

and other equipment to maneuver in and around the site. Also, the parking spaces were

conservatively sized at 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep to provide sufficient room for larger

vehicles.


13

Option II – Ideal Option

In Option II, a more comprehensive design philosophy was undertaken. These solutions

are designed to fully correct the problems involved with the site layout. For this option, the

specific focus areas are a new mechanics’ garage and automatic truck wash building, a new

storage shed, and a parking layout. This layout can be seen in Figure 3 and in Appendix I-H.

Figure 3: Option II Site Layout


14

Mechanics’ Garage/Automatic Truck Wash Building

The mechanics garage will be relocated to a new building southwest of the current

mechanics’ garage. This new building will be a prefabricated unit and will be composed of four

different sections. The first section of this new building will house the automatic truck wash.

The second section will be utilized as storage, mechanics’ offices, or additional truck parking as

needed. This second section can possibly be upgraded to other uses in the future as the need may

arise. The third and fourth sections will be the mechanics’ bays. This combines two necessary

structures into one, which will save on energy and initial investment costs. As in Option I, a

prefabricated building quote was obtained from Olympia Steel Buildings. The prefabricated

building for the mechanics’ garage can be found in Appendix I-F.

Storage Sheds

The ideal option will also attempt to maximize storage space on the site for backhoes,

trucks and other expensive items that need to be stored indoors. To accomplish this, the two

current storage sheds will be demolished. A large, prefabricated shed will then be installed

easterly of the current pump station near the pond. This new shed will serve two purposes. The

first purpose is that it is larger and will be easier to maneuver equipment in than the reconfigured

sheds of Option I. The second purpose is that is addresses the sanitary issues of bird droppings

that are currently being encountered. This design is a clear span frame as well, which should

help correct the bird problem. As with the other prefabricated buildings, this system was

provided by Olympia Steel Buildings and is cost effective. The prefabricated shed can be seen in

Appendix I-G.

Parking

Similar to the cost effective option, parking was rerouted to the eastern region of the site.

Adequate space for 50 parking spaces was provided to the north of the new storage shed. The

parking spaces are located outside of the general traffic zone for the trucks. The same logic that

was applied to the parking solution in Option I is consistent with the logic applied in this option

as well.


15

Building

Currently, the focal predicament of the office building and garage is the inadequate

amount of space. Workers are congested in every aspect of the building. From cramped offices

and “standing room only” during lunch, to the confining garage; the facility needs more space.

Office space is a shared commodity, with parts of it located in hallways. The mechanics’ garage

does not have enough room for storage. As a result, renting equipment is often the only resort to

get the tools that are needed. The garage is extremely short and narrow. More space will be

needed to accommodate at least 3 new, tandem axle trucks with the expanded US-24. Also, the

narrow width makes turning into the spaces extremely difficult. Several maneuvers are

demanded from the trucks in order to park. When asked, one of the truck drivers recommended

that at least 10 additional feet would help remedy the dilemma.

The retrofit to the main complex was aimed at increasing and creating usable space.

Redundant walls were removed and unused space was reacquired to meet this goal. The building

is split into three focus areas for each design option. These three areas entail the truck garage,

mechanics’ garage and the current office and lunch room space. While the provided designs are

separated into two specific options, the concepts of each area in the design are interchangeable.

An energy analysis is provided that is usable for both options.

Energy

To assist ODOT in meeting the energy reduction mandate from the state, some

investigation was performed to see where energy could be saved. General recommendations

such as better insulation and motion sensor lighting would make sense for the facility. Practices

such as only opening one garage door at a time would save greatly on heating as well. One idea

is to install plastic flaps (similar to those found at automatic car washes) on the inside of the

garage doors. The trucks could drive through the flaps, and they would help block the warm air

from exiting the garage in winter months.

Lighting

The area that was thoroughly researched was the lighting. Many of the current light

fixtures can be replaced with energy efficient lights. A detailed takeoff of the office building

was compiled and analyzed. After the takeoff was completed, Tony Kern with Westfield

Electric was contacted to supply a quote that would detail the cost of upgrading the lights. The

submitted price totals $26,410. This includes the removal of all existing fixtures in addition to

material and installation costs. Detailed cut sheets of the lighting can be seen in Appendix III-C.

Along with the takeoff is a feasibility analysis showing the payback period for the

expenditures. Table 2 shows the energy costs of the existing facility in comparison to the

proposed energy saving alternatives. It can be seen that the energy savings for the facility would

approximately be $3,500. In identifying this value, it can be seen that the payback period for this

project would be just over 7 years. This plan alone constitutes a 49.5% energy reduction of the

energy being exerted on building lighting. Another recommendation made to achieve additional


16

energy savings is the installation of watt stoppers amounting to $250.00 each. Considering the

mandate imposed by the state, these lighting savings would be highly beneficial.

Table 2: Lighting Analysis


In Option I, the three focus areas remain inside the building. Also, minimal changes to

the current structure are proposed. This is to help reduce the overall cost. A layout for the

mechanics’ garage and office and lunch room area can be seen in Figure 4 and in Appendix II-B.

EXISTING

Type Quantity Type Volt Wattage Hours/Year KWH/Year Energy Cost

D 12 HID Highbay 208 458 3472 19082.112 2,480.67

E 7 HID Highbay 208 458 3472 11131.232 1,447.06

M 4 HID Highbay 208 458 3472 6360.704 826.89

L 5 Enclosed Strip 120 169 3472 2933.84 381.40

C 1 KILLARK 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY

K 2 ART METAL 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY

P 5 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 2569.28 334.01

A 8 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 4110.848 534.41

B 1 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 513.856 66.80

N 1 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 513.856 66.80

F 4 Industrial 120 169 3472 2347.072 305.12

F 16 Industrial 120 169 3472 9388.288 1,220.48

7,663.64

2473

PROPOSED ENERGY SAVING ALTERNATES

Type Quantity Type Volt Wattage Hours/Year KWH/Year Energy Cost

D 12 T5HO Highbay 208 240 3472 9999.36 1,299.92

E 7 T5HO Highbay 208 240 3472 5832.96 758.28

M 4 T5HO Highbay 208 240 3472 3333.12 433.31

L 5 Enclosed Strip 120 112 3472 1944.32 252.76

C 1 KILLARK 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY

K 2 ART METAL 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY

P 5 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 833.28 108.33

A 8 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 1333.248 173.32

B 1 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 166.656 21.67

N 1 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 166.656 21.67

F 4 Industrial 120 112 3472 1555.456 202.21

F 16 Industrial 120 112 3472 6221.824 808.84

4,080.29

1248 SAVINGS 3,583.35Total Watt Consumption

Total Watt Consumption

Total Energy Reduction

for Building Light

Fixtures0.495 or 49.5%


17

Figure 4: Option I Office and Mechanics’ Garage Layout


18

Truck Garage

In the building design, the first area to be addressed is the truck garage. To solve the

issue of space, a new, structurally separate garage will be constructed adjacent to the north wall

of the existing garage. The addition will use a majority of the 65 feet between the existing

garage and the fence line, which is ample space for an addition. This proposed garage will have

roughly the same dimensions as the current garage, essentially doubling the provided space for

the trucks. The new structure will give the facility the capacity to acquire new trucks. The

parking spots in the existing and new garage will have a steeper angle and greater width than the

current setup. This will remove the difficulties associated with parking the trucks. To gain

access to the new structure, doors can be installed through the north wall of the existing garage.

A minimal gap between the current and proposed buildings is required due to the

geometry of the strip footings. Thus, the design group determined that this gap should be usable

and accessible space. A five foot walkway will be provided between the current garage and the

proposed garage. Finally, the soil bearing pressure was checked against the addition of the new

building. The additional load on the soil due to the new garage could potentially overstress the

soil. Using the allowable bearing capacity for the soil and geometric factors, calculations prove

that the new garage will have a negligible impact. These calculations can be found in Appendix

II-A.

Mechanics’ Garage

The second area of focus is the mechanics’ garage and the existing wash bay. The wash

bay will be removed and relocated to a separate location on the site. That space will then be

remodeled to be used for storage, tools, offices, or anything the mechanics may need. Removing

the wall between the existing wash bay and the mechanics’ garage was investigated. This would

incur a significant increase in renovation cost. Other complexities arose such as cracking the

masonry and lifting the roof during the removal of the wall. These combined with the cost

deemed this solution to be unreasonable.

Offices/Lunch Room Area

The final area of concentration in the main building is the office and lunch room area in

the southeastern corner. To grant more space to this area, the southern wall from the southeast

corner of the building to the mechanics garage will be extended approximately 30 feet to the

south. The lunch room will remain in its current location, and gain the additional space from the

new wall. The extended area directly south of the mechanics’ storage room will be renovated

into a new office. The space annexed just east of the entrance will be used for more new offices.

The new layout will also reserve space for separate locker rooms for men and women. The

women’s locker room will use the space of the current rest room and gain the hallways to the

south and west. Similar to the women’s, the men’s locker room will use the current rest room

and acquire the two office rooms in the southeast corner of the existing building. This will leave

sufficient space for showers, lockers, and rest rooms in each locker room.


19

This extra space will expand the lunch room and increase office capacity. Six new

offices will be installed using the space from the addition. The size of the lunch room will be

approximately four times larger than the current room. Existing load bearing walls were left in

place for cost efficiency and simplicity. The showers and bathrooms are conveniently situated

near the same location as the existing plumbing for the bathrooms. The proposed office layout

can be found in Appendix II-C.


In the ideal option, the same areas of the building are addressed. However, as outlined in

the ideal option for the site design, the mechanics’ garage will be relocated to a new building.

This will provide them with a new and adequate facility. In addition, this will free up a large

amount usable space for the rest of the building. A layout for the current mechanics’ area and

office and lunch room area can be seen in Figure 5 and in Appendix II-B.

Figure 5: Option II Office Layout


20

Truck Garage

More space in the truck garage will be created by eliminating everything except for the

southern wall. The garage will then be rebuilt and widened to approximately double its current

width. The new setup will allow for parking on both sides of the garage and more maneuvering

room for the trucks. The capacity of the garage will increase in order to house the new trucks

that will be acquired with the expanded US-24. It is also more cohesive for the building as

compared to Option I. A single garage will eliminate the inconveniences caused by the second

detached garage. Also, the maintenance and operational cost of one large garage will be less

than it would be for two.

Offices/Lunch Room Area

The majority of the space occupied by the existing mechanics’ garage will be utilized for

a new lunch room, which will be approximately four times larger than the current lunch room.

The rest of the space will be converted into three more offices that will be located along the

southern wall of the existing mechanics’ garage. The former wash bay will be converted into

four new offices, each with a door leading into the lunch room. The existing lunch room will

then be converted into two more offices. The mechanics’ office will remain an office. The

bathrooms will be modified in accordance with Option I.


21

Water

In the current situation, the water management including the intake and discharge at the

facility is a key issue. The OEPA has voiced their concerns regarding the water discharge from

the Henry County Highway Garage. The salt runoff from the trucks and the salt storage sheds

can significantly impact the biological cycle of the surrounding vicinity. In addition, soap and

other chemical contaminants from the garage are harmful to the neighboring area. The existing

source water for the facility has a reputation amongst the workers for being unreliable and

unsanitary. It operates out of a collection pond on the south end of the site. The design team has

outlined two options to assuage OEPA concerns and instill confidence amongst the workers in

their source water.

The location of the site hinders the feasibility of many solutions to these problems. In

addition, the OEPA regulations increase the importance of remedying these issues. Taking into

consideration the problems and corresponding constraints, the design team resolved rational

solutions in each of the design options.


The water management section of Option I aims to correct the water source and discharge

issues with a minimal amount of modifications. Simple solution approaches to each area are

taken to help keep the cost low while still addressing the issues. The locations of the proposed

solutions can be found on the site layout drawing for Option I in Figure 2 and in Appendix I-H.

Water Discharge

The first issue addressed in the cost effective alternative is the water discharge from the

site. Currently, there is no on-site treatment for any water exiting the property. There are

particular areas of the site that require specific attention. For example, the runoff occurring from

the garage area is contaminated with particulate and soluble pollutants. Thus, a new retention

pond will be excavated to receive this runoff. This retention pond will function to treat any

runoff coming from all areas of the site. It applies processes such as settling, sorption, filtration,

infiltration, biodegradation/bioassimilation, nitrification/denitrification, volatilization and

phytoremediation. The sanitary discharge from the complex will still be treated in the existing

leach field.

The pond will be located on the southern end of the site adjacent to the existing collection

pond. This location is practical due to the open space and relative proximity to the drainage

ditch that is south of the property. This is convenient for periodic discharges from the pond. The

pond will be able to remove the salt from the site runoff in compliance with the OPEA

regulations. In addition, the majority of the cost associated with the pond is in the initial

construction. The operational and maintenance costs are relatively low. Calculations and

dimensions for the retention pond can be found in Appendix III-A.


22

Water Source

The second issue concerning water management is the source for the facility. A small

filtering system such as a Kinetico drinking water system will be utilized as a post treatment

system to facilitate worker confidence. This will supplement the current system to provide

drinking water that is trusted by the employees. Therefore, the workers will no longer feel like

they have to use bottled water at all times. This system will be installed such that it is accessible

at a select few locations within the facility. All of the other potable water flow will remain within

the current system. A summary of the feasibility analysis between installing a Kinetico system

compared to using Culligan water is shown below in Table 3. The complete, detailed analysis is

provided in Appendix III-C. Information on the Kinetico system can be found in Appendix III-C

as well.

Table 3: Drinking Water Analysis

Drinking Water

Intital Cost Maintenance

Cost/year 5 Year

Cost/person/day

Kinetico $1,600 $100 $0.058

Cooler Rental

Cost/Month Refill

Cost/Jug 5 Year

Cost/person/day

Culligan Water $11 $6 $0.620


The proposed ideal option in regards to water management places emphasis on expansion

for the site in years to come. The investigated solutions are designed to be functional as the

facility grows. However, many of the proposed and researched solutions were deemed

impractical. This is due to the location of the site. It is far enough away from any municipality

to make a connection to any system unreasonable.

Water Discharge

To resolve the issue of the contaminated discharge from the site, the initial solution

included a combination of an oil-grit separator, a sand filter, and a sanitary tap into the City of

Napoleon’s combined system was researched. The sewer line would eliminate the leach field

and the septic tank, which would allow for more space on the current site. The oil-grit separator

would be the first step in the runoff treatment train. After the initial treatment, the water would

pass through the sand filter. The effluent would be composed of strictly salt water. It would

then pass into a storage tank where it could have been converted into brine to be conveniently re-

used. During times of the year when salt runoff is minimal, the runoff could have been

discharged directly into the combined sewer. Details of the oil-grit separator can be seen in

Figure 6 and sand filter in Figure 7.


23

Figure 6: Oil Grit Separator

Description: The oil/grit separator is a device designed to remove settleable solids, oil and

grease, debris and floatables from storm water runoff. This is done through gravitational settling

and trapping of pollutants. Oil-grit separators are also called gravity separators or oil/water

separators.


24

Figure 7: Sand Filter

During the investigation of Option II, the sand filter and sanitary tap were deemed to be

impractical. The reason a sand filter will not be employed is due to the sanitary tap. Per

recommendation of ODOT, a sanitary line and tap into the City of Napoleon sanitary system via

a nearby subdivision was to be investigated. After further research with city officials, the

sanitary line does not exist in said nearby subdivision. Additionally, a tap into the current system

elsewhere would be infeasible due to location. Thus, the sand filter is unnecessary due to the

lack of a sanitary system. Given the situation, the existing leach field will be kept in use.

However, a new oil-grit separator will still be employed to clean the runoff from the main

garage, truck wash, and the site. This new separator must be installed due to the inadequacy of

the current system to deal with the additional flows and runoff. An HE-S1-500 system will be

installed north of the pond.

Water Source

The water source issue was proposed to be amended by extending an existing waterline

near the facility to the site. This would have solved any of the issues regarding the quality and

worker confidence in the current operation. In addition, there would have always been a

constant supply of water for washing vehicles and other general functions for the site.

However, a similar problem was encountered with the proposed water line extension.

Again, due to the nonexistence of city utilities in the subdivision, a water line is a practical

impossibility. A water line does exist on the north side of the Maumee River. The extension of

the waterline to the site is unreasonable as it would have to be bored underneath the river, or

extended underneath the US-6 highway bridge. The idea of boring under the river was


25

immediately eliminated due to its inherent infeasibility. After further consultation with Mr. Dale

Rupert with the City of Toledo, the extension underneath the bridge was also deemed to be

unviable. The impracticality stems from the issue of the pipeline freezing during winter months

and the issue of maintaining the water line during bridge maintenance.

Despite the elimination of the proposed solutions, a reasonable solution was developed.

A 6 inch well can be drilled to obtain the water flow needed to supply the facility with potable

water. Well water is naturally filtered through the ground. Therefore, the water will only need to

be treated using the current on-site system. Because of the well, the existing pond will become

redundant. Thus, it will be retrofitted into a retention pond to treat storm water runoff from the

complex. A well diagram can be found in Appendix III-D.


26

Economics:

In the design evaluation, the design team detailed all foreseeable costs and benefits. The

costs summary associated with Options I and II are shown in the Tables below. As can be seen

in Table 4, the difference between the two options is relatively small.

Table 4: Economic Summary

Cost Summary

Section Item Option I Option II Difference

Building Office $292,111.08 $113,232.27 $178,878.81

Building Garage Addition $620,384.38 $949,853.61 $329,469.23

Site Wash Bay $307,877.29 $359,361.20 $51,483.91

Site Storage Sheds $50,643.41 $97,766.77 $47,123.35

Site Salt Dome $209,352.00 $209,352.00 $0.00

Site Asphalt Design $731,934.18 $734,933.03 $2,998.85

Site Mechanics Garage ---- $8,759.00 $8,759.00

Water Overall $108,554.69 $128,144.81 $19,590.12

Water New Retention Pond $121,378.95 --- $121,378.95

Water Retrofit Existing Pond --- $66,118.80 $66,118.80

Total $2,442,235.98 $2,667,521.48 $225,285.50

There were several areas of the project that contributed towards the similar costs. The

office expansion in Option I was necessary due to the lack of an additional mechanics’ garage.

This additional garage in Option II was not a significant additional cost since it was included in

the building with the automatic truck wash. Additionally, the new retention pond in Option I

costs more than retrofitting the existing collection pond specified in Option II. These

circumstances are the contributing factors to the close proximity of the estimates. Detailed

estimations of both options can be found in Appendix IV.

Based on the aforementioned estimates, the design team recommends that Option II be

employed to retrofit the facility. This option was designed with longevity and efficiency of the

facility in mind. It will most completely correct the identified inadequacies with the site. Given

that estimated prices associated with this option is only $225,000 higher, it is logical to

implement this option.


27

People Contacted

Bernadette Barth

ODOT District 2 Facilities Manager

317 East Poe Rd

Bowling Green, Ohio, 43402

[email protected]

419.373.4343

Craig Schneiderbauer

Henry County Garage Manager

US 6 and SR 110

Napoleon, Ohio 43545

[email protected]

419.592.1838

Randolf Germann

Henry County Engineer

660 N. Perry Street, Suite 101


419.592.2976

Jon Bisher

Napoleon City Manager

255 W. Riverview


419.592.4010

Roger Noblit

City of Napoleon Water and Wastewater Department

735 E. Washington St


419.592.3936

Chad Lulfs

City of Napoleon Engineer

255 W. Riverview Ave.

Napoleon, OH 43545

419.592.4010



28

Site Visits


29

Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Weather Conditions: Sunny, Windy and Bitterly Cold

Site Location: US 6 and SR 110, Napoleon, Ohio 43545

The first site visit occurred under the supervision of Bernadette Barth and Craig Schneiderbauer.

This formally introduced the facility to the students. Many problems about the current site and

building were discussed such as the space constraints, water discharge, and the current pavement.

All of the group members were present during this visitation to collect first hand information and

other data.

Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Weather Conditions: Cold with Falling Snow

Site Location: 200 Lemoyne Rd., Northwood, Ohio 43619

The second site visit for this project was to the ODOT garage located in Northwood, Ohio. This

is located in a southeastern suburb of Toledo off of I-280. Bernadette Barth coordinated this

visit with two of the students in the group. The goal of this visit was to observe another, more up

to date site than the Henry County Garage to provide insight into possible solutions to the other

site.

Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2008

Weather Conditions: Windy, Cold, and Heavy Snow

Site Location: US 6 and SR 110, Napoleon, Ohio 43545

The third site visit was to the Henry County Garage. Dr. Douglas Nims and two of the group

members studied the site to get a closer perspective on possible design solutions. During this

visit, a couple of the workers were interviewed to get direct insight into some of the issues. In

addition, a copy of the site plans was obtained by the students.


App-1

Appendices:

Table of Contents

I. Site Layout Design Material ........................................................................................................2

A. Ashpalt Design .......................................................................................................................2

B. Slab Calculations ..................................................................................................................13

C. Wash Bay Calculations .........................................................................................................24

D. Prefabricated Dome ..............................................................................................................32

E. Prefabricated Truck Wash ....................................................................................................33

F. Prefabricated Mechanics’ Garage/Truck Wash ....................................................................34

G. Prefabricated Storage Shed ..................................................................................................35

H. Drawings ..............................................................................................................................36

II. Building Design Material .........................................................................................................39

A. Soil Bearing Capacity ...........................................................................................................39

B. Drawings ..............................................................................................................................41

C. Energy Analysis ....................................................................................................................44

III. Water Management Design Material ......................................................................................54

A. Detailed Calculations ...........................................................................................................54

B. Table Calculations ................................................................................................................58

C. Feasibility Analysis ..............................................................................................................60

D. Well Diagram .......................................................................................................................62

IV. Estimation Tables ....................................................................................................................63

A. Option I .................................................................................................................................63

B. Option II ...............................................................................................................................66

V. Site Pictures ..............................................................................................................................69

VI. Statement of Qualifications .....................................................................................................76

VII. Project Grading Guidelines ...................................................................................................86


App-2

I. Site Layout Design Material

A. Asphalt Design1,2,3

Heavy Duty Asphalt Design

Assumptions:

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for B and C Vehicles:

Year 2008 2018

B (Tandem) 24 60

(Single) 60 60

C 40 60

Total 124 180

Lanes:

2 Lanes

24 hr Truck Traffic:

100%

Actual B:C Distribution Calculated from ADT Above:

Year 2008 2018

B 0.677419 0.666667

C 0.322581 0.333333

Soil Type

FuA

Soil Liquid Limit

83.453

2

6040

2

6040

2

4035

1 "ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual." Section 200:Pavement Design Concepts. 25 October 2007.

Ohio Department of Transportation. 20 Mar 2008

<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pavement/Pubs/PDRMc/Sect200.pdf>. 2 "ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual." Section 400: Flexible Pavement Design Procedures and

Considerations. 11 November 2007. Ohio Department of Transportation. 20 Mar 2008

<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pavement/Pubs/PDRMc/Sect400.pdf>. 3 "Soil Data Mart for Henry County, Ohio." USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States

Department of Agriculture. 3 Mar 2008

<http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=OH069&UseState=OH>.


App-3

Soil Plastic Index

33.233

2

3418

2

3418

2

2412

Percentage of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve

83.903

2

10080

2

10090

2

9580

Design Steps

ODOT 203-2 - Group Index

14.5 ≈ 15

ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus

GI = 15

CBR = 4.2

MR= 1200 * 4.2 = 5040 psi

ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors

Directional Distribution = 50%

Lane Factor = 100%

B Factor = 1.45

C Factor = 0.58

ODOT 402-1 - ESAL from B Trucks

5845.1*)3

2(*1*5.0*1*120 ESAL

ODOT 402-1 - ESAL from C Trucks

8.558.0*)3

1(*1*5.0*1*60 ESAL

ODOT 402-1 - Design ESAL

059,46620*25.365*8.63 ESAL

ODOT 402-1 – Design Factors

Reliability = 85% (Figure 201-1)

Overall Standard Deviation = 0.49 (Figure 201-1)

ESALs = 4.66 x 105 ESAL

Resilience Modulus = 5040 psi (MR above)


App-4

Determine Structural Number:

Using the Flexible Design Chart on from ODOT manual page 402-2 and the numbers and

calculations from steps above, a Structural Number (SN) is found for the Pavement.

SN ≈ 3.3

Heavy Duty Asphalt Design:

Heavy Duty Design Inches Coefficient SN

304 Aggregate Base 6 0.14 0.84

302 Bituminous Base 4 0.35 1.4

446 Asphalt Type2 1.5 0.35 0.525

446 Type 1H 1.5 0.46 0.69

Design SN 3.455

Actual Structural Number of the Pavement Design is larger than the Structural Number of the

Pavement obtained from the Design Chart; therefore the Pavement will meet the Structural

needs.

Regular Duty Asphalt Design

Assumptions:

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for B and C Vehicles:

Year 2008 2018

B 2 4

C 40 60

Total 42 64

Lanes:

2 Lanes

24 hr Truck Traffic:

20% (High but Conservative)

Actual B:C Distribution Calculated from ADT Above:

Year 2008 2018

B 0.047619 0.0625

C 0.952381 0.9375

Soil Type

FuA


App-5

Soil Liquid Limit

83.453

2

6040

2

6040

2

4035

Soil Plastic Index

33.233

2

3418

2

3418

2

2412


83.903

2

10080

2

10090

2

9580

Design Steps

ODOT 203-2 - Group Index

14.5 ≈ 15

ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus

GI = 15

CBR = 4.2

MR= 1200 * 4.2 = 5040 psi

ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors


Lane Factor = 100%

B Factor = 0.89

C Factor = 0.75


)89.0(*)0625.0(*1*)5.0(*1*4 0.11125 ESAL


)75.0(*)9375.0(*1*5.0*)2.0(*60 4.2187 ESAL


65.630,3120*25.365*33.4 ESAL

Use 50,000 ESALs due to the fact that it is the lowest ESAL value on the Flexible Pavement

Design Chart.


App-6

ODOT 402-1 – Design Factors

Reliability = 85% (Figure 201-1)

Overall Standard Deviation = 0.49 (Figure 201-1)

ESALs = 4.66 x 105 ESAL

Resilience Modulus = 5040 psi (MR above)

Determine Structural Number:

Using the Flexible Design Chart on from ODOT manual page 402-2 and the numbers and

calculations from steps above, a Structural Number (SN) is found for the Pavement.

SN ≈ 2.25

Regular Duty Pavement Design:

Regular Duty Design Inches Coefficient SN

304 Aggregate Base 6 0.14 0.84

301 Bituminous Base 3 0.35 1.05

448 Asphalt Type2 1.5 0.35 0.525

448 Type 1 1 0.43 0.43

Design SN 2.845

Actual Structural Number of the Pavement Design is larger than the Structural Number of the

Pavement obtained from the Design Chart; therefore the Pavement will meet the Structural

needs.

Pavement Design Philosophy

The first item to look at when designing asphalt is the soil beneath it; stronger soil, or sub base,

would mean less asphalt and aggregate needed to support the weight of the vehicles driving it.

The Henry County garage site was looked up on the United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Services web page. A soils analysis was done in order to obtain

the resilience modulus, which later helps determine the structural number. The resilience

modulus which was found from the weakest soil on site was 5040 psi. The weakest soil was

taken for conservative reasons. If the asphalt designed is strong enough to support the vehicles

with the weakest soil underneath, it will of course be able to support them with a stronger sub

base.

The second item which needs to be determined is the amount of Equivalent 18,000 lb Axle Load

(ESALs) per each type of vehicle. For the heavy duty asphalt, the area which has been

delineated for the heaver salt trucks and plows, was calculated to be mostly truck traffic, but

would still have smaller vehicle traffic. It was assumed to have roughly two thirds truck traffic

and only one third smaller vehicle traffic. The ESALs of both type B and C vehicles where

calculated using the ODOT Pavement Design Concepts in section 200. Once the ESALs where

calculated and all other numbers were obtained; the ODOT Flexible Pavement Design Chart was

used to find the structural number for the pavement. This number is used as a target number for

the pavement needing to be designed. When layers of aggregate and sub layers of asphalt are

called for, the depth of each is multiplied by a layer coefficient. The sum of these coefficients is


App-7

the actual structural number of the pavement designed. For the heavy duty pavement the

structural number became roughly 3.3. The design then was 6 inches of 304 aggregate, 4 inches

of 302 bituminous base, 1.5 inches of 446 Type 2 asphalt, and 1.5 inches of 446 Type 1H

asphalt. The Type 1H was chosen after reading the ODOT Flexible Pavement Design manual,

section 400. Type 1H is used for more heavy duty and high truck traffic areas. 446 asphalt was

chosen due to the fact that it is tested before implemented, and with the use of Type 1H, 446 is

required to be the intermediate layer. This pavement design ended up with a structural number

of 3.45 will be effectively support the weight of the vehicles.

The regular duty asphalt was to be designed for the parking area only. There should be very

minimal truck traffic (ideally, no truck traffic), but should be able to support the many cars and

pick up trucks which may show up daily. The truck traffic was assumed to be 6% with the other

94% of the traffic going to type C vehicles. The ESALs for both types of vehicles were

calculated and a number lower than the lowest on the design chart was achieved. Therefore the

lowest number of 50,000 ESALs was chosen. This satisfactory for if the ESALs is actually less

than the number used for the design, then the pavement will defiantly be able to support the

weight, and will have a little extra strength incase the truck traffic was underestimated. The

structural number was obtained just like the heavy duty pavement and the parking lot structural

number was 2.25. The design was then calculated up to be 6 inches of 304 aggregate base, 3

inches of bituminous base, 1.5 inches of 448 Type 2 asphalt as the intermediate course, and 1

inch of 448 Type 1 asphalt as the surface course. In the ODOT Flexible Design Manual, section

404.3, it describes the lift requirements of Type 1 surface asphalt. It stats that 1 inch may be

used, and that 446 should be required if uniform thickness is required. The structural number of

the parking lot asphalt design is 2.845. It therefore is above the required 2.25 structural number

and can therefore be surfaced with 448 Type 1.


App-8


App-9


App-10


App-11


App-12

B. Slab Calculations 4,5,6,7,8

Wash Bay

Assumptions:

Subbase:

8” 304 Aggregate Base

A large subbase was chosen to minimize the thickness of the slab. Typical values vary from 4 to

6 inches of 304 Aggregate.

Lanes:

1 lane

A “one way” design lane was chosen due to the fact that this will lead to the worst case scenario

in addition to the Wash Bay being a one way traffic lane. When calculating the Total ESAL

value, a one way lane will have no reducing effect.

Average Daily Traffic

79.8365

3207

dayvehicle

This value was based on the number of truck washes per year.

24 hr Truck Traffic

82.3207

2645vehicles

trucks

The amount of heavy truck traffic was estimated based on the number of plow washes to the

number of total washes. This is to determine the Truck Factor when calculating Total ESALS.

Actual B:C Distribution

7.4562

2645

5:1

4 "ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual." Section 300: Rigid Pavement Design. 10

November 2007. Ohio Department of Transportation. 3 Mar 2008

<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pavement/Pubs/PDRMc/Sect300.pdf>. 5 McCormac, Jack C. and James K. Nelson. "Design of Reinforced Concrete." Ed.. McCormac and Nelson.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. 6 "Soil Data Mart for Henry County, Ohio." USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States

Department of Agriculture. 3 Mar 2008

<http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=OH069&UseState=OH>. 7 "Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade Subjected to Heavy Loads." August 1987. Department of the Army and

Air Force. 3 Mar 2008 <http://www.army.mil/usapa/eng/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/tm5_809_12.pdf>. 8 Kissoff, Nicholas V. "CIVE 3520-041 - Transportation Engineering II." Toledo, OH. Summer 2007.


App-13

To determine what the slab should be classified as, the B:C Distribution needed to be calculated.

The amount of plow trucks to the amount of pickup trucks using the wash bay was computed.

Closest ODOT Distribution

Rural Interstate (ODOT 202-1)

Based on the numbers calculated in the previous sheet, it was determined that the vehicle

distribution fit the classification for a Rural Interstate

Soil Type

FuA

Soil Liquid Limit

83.453

2

6040

2

6040

2

4035

Soil Plastic Index

33.233

2

3418

2

3418

2

2412


83.903

2

10080

2

10090

2

9580

Design Steps – From ODOT Section 300: Rigid Pavement Design

1. ODOT 203-2 - Group Index

14.5 ≈ 15

2. ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus

GI = 15

CBR = 4.2

MR= 1200 * 4.2 = 5040 psi

Based on the ODOT Manual, the Group Index is used to find the California Bearing Ratio, which

is then used to determine the Modulus of Resiliency of the soil.

3. ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors


Lane Factor = 100%

B:C Ratio= 5:1 (closest approximation)

B Factor = 1.84

C Factor = .53


App-14

These factors are taken out off of ODOT 202-1. These factors are based on the characteristics

determined in the assumptions section.

ODOT 302-1 – Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) from B Trucks

1573.1384.1*6

5*1*1*82.*92.10 ESALs/day


179.53.*6

1*1*1*82.*92.10 ESALs/day

In this section, the equivalent single axle loads per day are being computed using the values from

ODOT 202-1. The ESAL value is usually rounded up to the nearest multiple of five or one for

small values.


11680020*365*16 Total ESALs

The total ESALs from B and C trucks are added up and multiplied by the days in a year and the

design life to determine the ESAL the slab is subjected to in its service life.

4. ODOT 301-2 - Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Kc = 350 pci

5. ODOT 301-3 - Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

K=120 pci

The Moduli of Subgrade Reactions are selected using ODOT design charts with the Subbase

Elastic Modulus and Subgrade Resilient Modulus determining the Composite Modulus, which is

then used to read another graph 301-3 to determine the Effective Modulus.


App-15

6. ODOT 302-2, 3 - Rigid Pavement Design Chart

E’c = 5000000 psi

S’c = 700 psi

J= 2.8

Cd= 1

ΔPSI = 1.7

Reliability = 90%

Use 5” Slab

Punching Shear - p.505 Design of Reinforced Concrete

Allowable Punching Shear

bwdcfVp '4

cfcS '9'

2

9

700'cf =6000 psi

2.111544*12*6000*4*75.Vp lb

Worst Case Shear

6000_1

_1000*

2*___5.__2

_30

kip

lb

axletireequivaxlerearaxlesrear

kip lb

Allowable Shear > Actual Shear; 5” Slab OK


App-16

Storage Shed Slabs

Assumptions:

Subbase:


Lanes:

1 Lane

AADT

40 Implement/Day

This value was based on the amount of equipment currently used on site and an estimated

number of how many times a day they are used.

24 hr Truck Traffic

100%

Based on the size of the machinery utilized on site, the traffic was assumed to be all B traffic

type.



Soil Type

Me

Soil Liquid Limit

17.373

2

6538

2

4424

2

3220

Soil Plastic Index

67.163

2

4018

2

228

2

102


%17.693

2

9580

2

6040

2

8555

Design Steps


9.5 ≈ 10


App-17


GI = 10

CBR = 6

MR= 1200 * 6 = 7200 psi



Lane Factor = 100%


B Factor = 1.84

C Factor = .53


6533.6184.1*6

5*1*1*1*40 ESAL/day


553.353.*6

1*1*1*1*40 ESAL/day


51100020*365*70 Total ESAL


Kc = 450 pci


K=150 pci


E’c = 5000000 psi

S’c = 700 psi

J= 2.8

Cd= 1

ΔPSI = 1.7

Reliability = 90%

Use 6” Slab



bwdcfVp '4

cfcS '9'

2

9

700'cf =6000 psi

7.139425*12*6000*4*75.Vp lb


App-18

Worst Case Shear

7500_1

_1000*

2

__15

kip

lb

axletire

backhoekip lb



App-19

Mechanics Bay

Assumptions:

Subbase:


Lanes:

1 Lane

AADT

4 Trucks/Day

This number was based on an estimate of how many trucks go in and out of the Mechanics Bay

per day for service. A high value was chosen due to it leading to a more conservative design.

24 hr Truck Traffic

100%

Again, as a majority of the snow plows will use this bay for service, the truck distribution was

assumed to be 100%. Furthermore, this gives a more conservative design.



Soil Type

RfA – Lower Level Clay

Liquid Limit

5.472

6035

Plastic Index

5.222

3015

Passing No. 200

%5.872

9580

Design Steps


14.5 ≈ 15


App-20


GI = 15

CBR = 4.25

MR= 1200 * 4.25 = 5100 psi



Lane Factor = 100%


B Factor = 1.84

C Factor = .53


10133.684.1*6

5*1*1*1*4


1353.53.*6

1*1*1*1*4


8030020*365*11 ESAL


Kc = 380 pci


K=120 pci


E’c = 5000000 psi

S’c = 700 psi

J= 2.8

Cd= 1

ΔPSI = 1.7

Reliability = 90%

Use 5” Slab


App-21



bwdcfVp '4

cfcS '9'

2

9

700'cf =6000 psi

2.111544*12*6000*4*75.Vp lb

Worst Case Shear

6000_1

_1000*

2*___5.__2

_30

kip

lb

axletireequivaxlerearaxlesrear

kip lb



App-22


App-23


App-24

C. Wash Bay Calculations9,10,11

Plow Trucks

29 snow events/yr 3 Days/snow event 87 event-days/yr

Winter Months 87 Snow event*day/yr 3 washes/snow day 10 trucks 2610 truck washes/year

Summer Months 8 months/year 4.33 weeks/month 1 wash/week 35 truck washes/year

Total 2645 truck washes/year

Pickup Trucks

Winter Months 87 Snow event*day/yr 3 trucks washed/shift 2 shift/day 522 pick up washes/year

Summer Months 278 non*event*day/yr 1/7 week/day 1 wash/week 6 pickups 40 pick up washes/year

Total 562 pick up washes/year

Total Current Cost

Hand Rinse

Plow Trucks 2645 truck washes/ yr 0.5 hr/wash 30 dollar/hr $39,669.60 dollar/yr

Pickup Trucks 562 pick up washes/yr 0.5 hr/wash 30 dollar/hr $8,425.71 dollar/yr

Offsite Washing

Plow Truck - Normal Event

87 incident/year 1/7 week/day 1 wash/week 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 10 trucks $8,389.29 dollar/year

Plow Truck – Non Snow Event

278 non-incident/year 0.033 month/day 1 wash/month 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 10 trucks $6,192.45 dollar/year

Pickup Trucks

87 incident/year 1/7 week/day 1 wash/week 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 6 pickups $5,033.57 dollar/year

Pickup Trucks

278 non-incident/year 0.033 month/day 1 wash/month 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 6 pickups $3,715.47 dollar/year


9 Crawford, Ryan. "Truck Wash." InterClean. E-mail to Mark Hall.26 Feb 2008.

10

University of Toledo ODOT Senior Design Group 1, "ODOT Highway Maintenance Facility Design." CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project: Fall 2007. 12

December 2007. University of Toledo College of Engineering: Department of Civil Engineering. 15 Feb 2008

<http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/civil/senior%20capstone%20reports/CIVE%204750%2020074%20ODOT%201%20Final%20Report.pdf>.

11

Schneiderbauer, Craig. "U. Toledo Senior Design Project." E-mail to Mark Hall.25 February 2008.


App-25

InterClean – Yearly Washing Costs

*******ASSUME 1 FT/SEC WASH

Chemical

$2.36 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $6,234.30 dollar/year

$1.32 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year $741.38 dollar/year

Water

$0.00 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $0.00 dollar/year


Electricity



Natural Gas



Softener Salt





App-26

Feasibility Analysis

Do Nothing

Total $71,426.09 dollar/yr $71,426.09 dollar/yr

InterClean System - Cost Effective

Total Wash Costs/ Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year



Annual Operating and Mainenance $25,000.00 dollar/year $25,000.00 dollar/year


InterClean System - Ideal

Total Wash Costs/Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year





Water Consumption - InterClean Option

*********To Calculate Water Consumption Assume Water Cost of $.05 per gallon

Plow Trucks 20 gallon/dollar $4.96 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year 262384 gal/year

Pickup Trucks 20 gallon/dollar $2.84 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year 31921.6 gal/year

Water Consumption - InterClean Option

0.15 Water Use post-Recycling 39357.6 gal/year

0.15 Water Use post-Recycling 4788.24 gal/year

Total 44145.84 gal/year

Water Consumption - Hand Wash

Plow Trucks 2645 truck washes/ yr 250 gal/wash 661160 gal/yr

Pickup Trucks 562 pick up washes/year 100 gal/wash 56171 gal/yr

Total 717331 gal/yr

InterClean Wash Bay Costs – Plow Trucks

Cost Effective Option


App-28

Interclean Wash Bay Costs – Pickup Trucks

Cost Effective Option


App-30


App-31


App-32

D. Prefabricated Dome


App-33

E. Prefabricated Truck Wash


App-34

F. Prefabricated Mechanics’ Garage/Wash Bay


App-35

G. Prefabricated Storage Shed


App-36

H. Drawings


App-37


App-38


App-39

II. Building Design Material

A. Soil Bearing Capacity

Check the strength of the soil along the northern wall of the current main garage for addition of

a second garage as outlined in Option I.

Allowable bearing capacity = 3000 psf

With two footings, the stress block overlap within the soil cannot exceed 3000 psf. Therefore,

the load from each footing within the area must be ≤ 1500 psf.

A 2:1 slope for each stress block is assumed.

Strip footings are 20” in width

Using Table 6.4 in Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering, 2nd

Edition (Das, 2005), several

locations are checked to be less than this ratio

Location 1:

Slope is greater than assumed 2:1, and point is inside the stress block.

Location 2:

Slope is greater than assumed 2:1, and point is inside the stress block.


App-40

Location 3:

Slope is greater than assumed 2:1, and point is outside the stress block.


App-41

B. Drawings


App-42


App-43


App-44

C. Energy Analysis


App-45


App-46


App-47


App-48


App-49


App-50


App-51


App-52


App-53


App-54

III. Water Management Design Material

A. Detailed Calculations

100 year storm calculations:

New Retention Pond

Overflow Depth Calculations:

Cross sectional area of pond at overflow depth:

Overflow depth:

ft

Adjusted Overflow depth:


App-55

Drainage Calculations:

Adjusted Annual Rain Volume:

Volume of Fluctuation Depth:

Number of Times to Drain Pond Annually:

Pond Volume Calculations:

Overflow Volume:

Permanent and Fluctuation Volume:

Total Volume:


App-56

Existing Pond:

Overflow Depth Calculations:

Cross sectional area of pond at overflow depth:

Overflow depth:

ft

Adjusted Overflow depth:

Drainage Calculations:

Adjusted Annual Rain Volume:

Volume of Fluctuation Depth:


App-57

Number of Times to Drain Pond Annually:

Pond Volume Calculations:

Overflow Volume:

Permanent and Fluctuation Volume:

Total Volume:


App-58

B. Table Calculations

C (coefficient) ft/day ( 5 in/day) Area (ft2) Q (ft

3/day)

0.9 0.42 348480 146362

New Retention Pond

Item Amount Units

Overflow Depth 4.92 ft

Cross section area of pond at over flow depth 29700 ft2

Length 180 ft

Width 165 ft

Slope of Pond Walls (Overflow Depth) 3 :1 Ratio

Slope of Pond Walls (Permanent/Fluctuation Depth) 2 :1 Ratio

Adjusted Overflow Depth for Slope of Walls 6.2 ft

Pond Permanent Level Depth 10 ft

Pond Fluctuation Depth 4 ft

Total Depth 20.2 ft

Average Annual Precipitation 35.1 in

Site Rainfall 37752 cy

Runoff Collected in Pond (Coefficient = .90) 33976.8 cy

Volume water used in wash 3050 cy

Volume Water evaporated (6 in/yr) 6453.3 cy

Brine Tank Consumption (50000 gal) 247.5 cy

Adjusted collection of pond 24266 cy

Drainage Volume with 4 ft Pond Depth Fluctuation 2392 cy

Times Pond drained per Year 11 /year

Overflow Volume 5426 cy

Permanent and Fluctuation Volume 5941 cy

Total Volume 11367 cy

TDS to go into Pond 1500 mg/l

Tons Salt Released (per month) 1.5 ton

Volume Required to Dilute Salt to < 1500mg/l 1187 cy

Incoming runoff Volume 2206 cy

Retrofit Existing Pond

Item Amount Units

Overflow Depth 4.3 ft

Cross section area of pond at over flow depth 34161 ft2

Length 193 ft


App-59

Width 177 ft *assumed value

Slope of Pond Walls (Overflow Depth) 3 :1 Ratio *assumed value

Slope of Pond Walls (Permanent/Fluctuation Depth) 3 :1 Ratio

Adjusted Overflow Depth for Slope of Walls 5.1 ft

Pond Permanent Level Depth 9.9 ft

Pond Fluctuation Depth 3 ft

Total Depth 18 ft

Average Annual Precipitation 35.1 in

Site Rainfall 37752 cy

Runoff Collected in Pond (Coefficient = .90) 33976.8 cy

Volume water used in wash 3050 cy

Volume Water evaporated (6 in/yr) 6453.3 cy

Brine Tank Consumption (50000 gal) 247.5 cy

Adjusted collection of pond 24266 cy

Drainage Volume with 3 ft Pond Depth Fluctuation 2342 cy

Times Pond drained per Year 11 /year

Overflow Volume 5428 cy

Permanent and Fluctuation Volume 6365 cy

Total Volume 11793 cy

TDS to go into Pond 1500 mg/l

Tons Salt Released (per month) 1.5 ton

Volume Required to Dilute Salt to < 1500mg/l 1187 cy

Incoming runoff Volume 2206 cy

No need to resize current collection pond to convert it to a retention pond. Need to add an out

flow pipe at a depth of 5.1 feet.


App-60

C. Feasibility Analysis

Drinking Water

Intital Cost Maintenance

Cost/year 5 Year

Cost/person/day

Kinetico $1,600 $100 $0.058

Cooler Rental

Cost/Month Refill

Cost/Jug 5 Year

Cost/person/day

Culligan Water $11 $6 $0.620

Kinetico has an initial cost of $1600 for one faucet that runs its water through a carbon filtering system that removes aesthetics such as taste and odor from the drinking water.

After the initial investment, the only maintenance cost is changing the filter approximately 4 times per year at a charge of $25 per filter change.

Culligan water requires a cooler which rents at $11 dollars per month and a water jug of 2.5 gallons cost $6.

The analysis uses an reserved average daily consumption of 4 cups (32 fl.oz.) of water per day.

Both cost estimates base their values off 20 people consuming water per day.

The price of a 32floz bottle of water at a gas station is approximately $1.50.

The following pictures are for the Kinetico system.


App-61


App-62

D. Well Diagram


App-63

IV. Estimation Tables

A. Option I Reference Item Quantity Unit $ / Unit Total Cost

244 Foundations 112 LF $18.30 $2,049.60

246 Dampproffing 112 LF $4.24 $474.88

248 Excavation 1830 SF $0.79 $1,445.70

X Demo Walls - 2L, 1 Op. (1WK) 1 WKS $3,000.00 $3,000.00

X Dumpster 1 EA $350.00 $350.00

X Equipment 1 WK $1,000.00 $1,000.00

247 Slab on Grade 1830 SF $4.45 $8,143.50

X Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00

175 Roof Construction 1830 SF $16.31 $29,847.30

331 Gutters (Al, Enameled) 91 LF $6.52 $593.32

331 Downspouts 18 LF $4.49 $80.82

292 Exterior Walls (10' High) 1120 SF $11.88 $13,305.60

292 Interior Walls (10' High) 1400 SF $7.24 $10,136.00

175 Windows 11 EA $630.00 $6,930.00

324 Exterior Doors 2 EA $1,458.00 $2,916.00

X Door Stoops - 4' x 4' (2) 32 SF $35.00 $1,120.00

175 Interior Doors 10 EA $815.00 $8,150.00

349 Wall Finishes (8' High) 4032 SF $1.50 $6,048.00

351 Floor Finishes (Epoxy) 2715 SF $6.81 $18,489.15

351 Floor Finishes (Carpet) 1360 SF $4.30 $5,848.00

355 Ceiling Finishes (Acoustical) 1830 SF $2.68 $4,904.40

175 Plumbing Fixures (includes showers) 3600 SF $2.71 $9,756.00

Internet Lockers 25 EA $350.00 $8,750.00

175 HVAC 1830 SF $18.80 $34,404.00

175 Electrical 1830 SF $22.80 $41,724.00

$221,296.27

$292,111.08additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Office Bldg Total

Office Building --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Bldg

244 Foundations 444 LF $33.15 $14,718.60

245 Dampproffing 444 LF $4.24 $1,882.56

248 Excavation 8840 SF $0.24 $2,121.60

249 4" Sidewalk (5ft wide) 850 SF $4.50 $3,825.00

247 Slab on Grade 8840 SF $5.48 $48,443.20

R/L Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00


331 Gutters (Al, Enameled) 170 LF $6.52 $1,108.40

331 Downspouts 9 LF $4.49 $40.41


225 OH Doors 2 EA $2,436.00 $4,872.00

349 Wall Finishes 17760 SF $1.50 $26,640.00

225 Floor Finishes - Epoxy 8840 SF $6.81 $60,200.40

225 Heating and Ventilation 8840 SF $4.88 $43,139.20

225 Electrical 8840 SF $7.11 $62,852.40

$469,988.17

$620,384.38additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Garage Total

Garage Addition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garage


App-64

Quote InterClean Wash Bay 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000.00

Quote Prefabricated Building 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000.00

65 Slab on Grade 50 CY $21.00 $1,053.24

41 Aggregate 80 CY $25.50 $2,046.30

523 Soil Stripping 130 CY $1.08 $140.83

$233,240.37

$307,877.29

Quote Building Relocation 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000.00

65 Slab on Grade 133 CY $21.00 $2,800.00

41 Aggregate 178 CY $25.50 $4,533.33

523 Soil Stripping 311 CY $3.32 $1,032.89

$38,366.22

$50,643.41

Quote Investment 1 EA $137,000.00 $137,000.00

Quote Bollards 1 EA $800.00 $800.00

Quote Swing Doors 1 EA $2,300.00 $2,300.00

Quote Linseed Oil - Building and Doors 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500.00

Quote 6" Concrete Floor 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00

$158,600.00

$209,352.00Salt Dome Total

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees

Wash Bay

Wash Bay Total

Storage Sheds ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Storage Sheds

Wash Bay --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Storage Sheds Total

Salt Dome---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salt Dome



App-65

ODOT - 202 Ashpalt Excavation 11083 SY $15.00 $166,237.83

ODOT - 202 Base Excavation 11083 SY $5.50 $60,953.87

ODOT - 304 Aggregate 369 CY $25.00 $9,219.65

ODOT - 301 Intermediate Course 184 CY $100.00 $18,439.31

ODOT - 448 Type 2 Intermediate Course 92 CY $110.00 $10,141.62

ODOT - 448 Type 1 Top Course 61 CY $118.00 $7,252.79

$272,245.08

$359,363.50






ODOT - 446 Type 1H Top Course 462 CY $95.00 $43,868.32

$282,250.52

$372,570.68

RSM 575 12" Concrete Storm Pipe 1025 LF $23.00 $23,575.00

RSM 578 Catch Basin (Heavy Traffic 36" x 36") 5 EA $1,425.00 $7,125.00

RSM 571 Water Line to Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20

RSM 571 Water Line from Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20

Oil/Grit Seperator (HE S1-500) 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00

RSM 575 New Septic Tank (1000 GPD)2

1 EA $900.00 $900.00

$82,238.40

$108,554.69

Parking Area Asphalt Design----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parking Area Asphalt

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Parking Area Total

Heavy Duty Asphalt Design-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heavy Duty Asphalt

Heavy Duty Total

Water Management----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Management


additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Water Management Total

RSM Excavating 11,367 CY $4.25 $48,309.75

RSM Compaction (6"Lifts, 2' Thick) 580 CY $15.00 $8,700.00

RSM 30 mil PVC Liner 31,200 SF $1.12 $34,944.00

$91,953.75

$121,378.95

$2,442,235.98Grand Total

New Retention Pond--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retention Pond

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Retention Pond Total


App-66

B. Option II

X Demo Walls - 2L, 1 Op. (1 WK) 1 WKS $3,000.00 $3,000.00

X Demo Mechanics - 2L, 1 Op. (1WK) 1 WKS $3,000.00 $3,000.00

X Dumpster 5 EA $350.00 $1,750.00

X Equipment 2 WKS $1,000.00 $2,000.00

X Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00

X Exterior Walls 504 SF $11.88 $5,987.52

292 Interior Walls (10' High) 1680 SF $7.24 $12,163.20

175 Windows 4 EA $630.00 $2,520.00

324 Exterior Man Doors 1 EA $1,458.00 $1,458.00

X Door Stoops - 4' x 4' (2) 16 SF $35.00 $560.00

175 Interior Doors 11 EA $815.00 $8,965.00

349 Wall Finishes 3495 SF $1.50 $5,242.50

351 Floor Finishes (Epoxy) 2450 SF $6.81 $16,684.50

351 Floor Finishes (Carpet) 1605 SF $4.30 $6,901.50

355 Ceiling Finishes (Acoustical) 2535 SF $2.68 $6,793.80

175 Plumbing Fixures (includes showers) 3600 SF $2.71 $9,756.00

Internet Lockers 25 EA $350.00 $8,750.00

175 HVAC 0 SF $18.80 $0.00

175 Electrical 0 SF $22.80 $0.00

$85,782.02

$113,232.27

Office Building ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Office Bldg Total

Office Bldg

X Garage Demolition - 2L, 1 Op. (2 WK) 2 WKS $3,000.00 $6,000.00

X Dumpster 8 EA $350.00 $2,800.00

X Equipment 2 WK $1,000.00 $2,000.00

244 Foundations 274 LF $33.15 $9,083.10

245 Dampproffing 274 LF $4.24 $1,161.76

248 Excavation 8840 SF $0.24 $2,121.60

292 Slab on Grade 17680 SF $5.48 $96,886.40

X Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00


331 Gutters (Al, Enameled) 170 LF $6.52 $1,108.40

331 Downspouts 9 LF $4.49 $40.41


324 Exterior Man Doors 2 EA $1,458.00 $2,916.00

225 OH Doors 2 EA $2,436.00 $4,872.00

349 Wall Finishes 10960 SF $1.50 $16,440.00

225 Floor Finishes - Epoxy 17680 SF $6.81 $120,400.80

225 Heating and Ventilation 17680 SF $4.88 $86,278.40

225 Electrical 17680 SF $7.11 $125,704.80

$719,586.07

$949,853.61

Garage

Garage Addition ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Garage Total


App-67

Quote InterClean Wash Bay 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000.00


65 Slab on Grade 35 CY $21.00 $729.17

41 Aggregate 56 CY $25.50 $1,416.67


$272,243.33

$359,361.20


65 Slab on Grade 144 CY $21.00 $3,034.11

41 Aggregate 193 CY $25.50 $4,912.37

523 Soil Stripping 337 CY $3.32 $1,119.25

$74,065.73

$97,766.77

Quote Investment 1 EA $137,000.00 $137,000.00

Quote Bollards 1 EA $800.00 $800.00

Quote Swing Doors 1 EA $2,300.00 $2,300.00

Quote Linseed Oil - Building and Doors 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500.00

Quote 6" Concrete Floor 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00

$158,600.00

$209,352.00

Wash Bay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salt Dome-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salt Dome

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Salt Dome Total

Storage Sheds --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Storage Sheds


Wash Bay

Wash Bay Totaladditional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees

Storage Sheds Total

65 Slab on Grade 94 CY $21.00 $1,978.47

41 Aggregate 151 CY $25.50 $3,843.89


$6,635.61

$8,759.00






ODOT - 446 Type 1H Top Course 486 CY $95.00 $46,150.21

$294,572.73

$388,836.00

Heavy Duty Asphalt Design---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heavy Duty Asphalt

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Heavy Duty Total

Mechanics Garage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mechanics Garage Totaladditional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees

Mechanics Garage






ODOT - 448 Type 1 Top Course 48 CY $118.00 $5,634.86

$262,194.72

$346,097.03

Parking Area Asphalt

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Parking Area Total

Parking Area Asphalt Design-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


App-68

RSM 575 12" Concrete Storm Pipe 1010 LF $23.00 $23,230.00

RSM 578 Catch Basin (Heavy Traffic 36" x 36") 6 EA $1,425.00 $8,550.00

RSM 571 Additional Water Line to Building (1.5" PVC) 180 LF $1.45 $261.00

RSM 571 Water Line to Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20

RSM 571 Water Line from Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20

Oil/Grit Seperator (HE S1-500) 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00

TDC 6" Well (Incl. casing, pump, etc.) 1 EA $13,500.00 $13,500.00

RSM 575 New Septic Tank (1000 GPD)2

1 EA $900.00 $900.00

$97,079.40

$128,144.81

RSM Compaction (6"Lifts, 2' Thick) 670 CY $15.00 $10,050.00

RSM 30 mil PVC Liner 35,750 SF $1.12 $40,040.00

$50,090.00

$66,118.80

$2,667,521.48

Water Managment---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Management

2Needed if old septic tank will not handle at least 800 GPD

Existing Pond Retrofit----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Management

additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Water Management Total

Grand Total

Water Management Totaladditional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees


App-69

V. Site Pictures

Current Truck Garage


App-70

Current Mechanics’ Garage


App-71

West side of truck garage and salt dome


App-72

Tandem truck currently in garage


App-73

Existing collection pond


App-74

Outside storage


App-75

Inside hallway and offices


App-76

VI. Statement of Qualifications ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABE Z. AHMED Abe Ahmed is a senior pursue a degree in Civil Engineering. Abe is planning on

graduating in August of 08 and has plans on starting his career in the Construction

Industry. Abe currently is a Rudolph Libbe employee with experience as a

Project Manager/Estimator. This experience has given Abe a strong construction

background and an understanding of proper business practice. Abe is also a

member of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVAN M. DISANTO Evan DiSanto is currently a senior in Civil Engineering. He plans to graduate in

August of 2008. After completing three semesters of co-op with Terrace

Construction in Cleveland, the field of construction became a great interest to

him. He is from Cleveland and hopes to find a job close to home. Evan is excited

about graduating and has had a great experience so far at the University of

Toledo. He has learned so much from his professors and has made many great

friends during his time here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARK J. HALL Mark is a senior majoring in Civil Engineering. He anticipates graduating in May

of 2008. Mark is involved with Chi Epsilon and Golden Key. He also serves on

the Civil Engineering Student Advisory Board. Mark has experience in

construction staking, GPS/GIS Systems, AUTOCAD and has also worked on Cost

Segregation Studies in the past. Mark is interested in various aspects of

Transportation Engineering, Planning Construction, and Construction

management.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MATT P. LONGFIELD Matt Longfield is a senior in civil engineering at the University of Toledo. Matt

has broad experience within civil engineering through co-op experience with for

the City of Oregon during his last two years of college. He has been exposed to a

variety of areas within civil engineering. Matt has worked on all stages of

projects including design, approval, bidding, and construction. During his

academic career, Matt has spent time participating in load testing on the Veteran’s

Glass City Skyway Bridge and researching with Dr. Douglas Nims.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


App-77

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHET D. MANZ Chet is a senior with a major in Civil Engineering and a minor in Business. Chet

is planning to graduate with his bachelor’s degree in August of 2008. From co-op

and personal experiences Chet has become interested in the construction industry.

Project management, scheduling and estimating are among the training

experiences the he has been a part of. Chet is very excited to get out into the

work force and put his classroom knowledge to use.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BENJAMIN R. PERRY Ben is a senior Civil Engineering student at the University of Toledo and

anticipates graduating in May of 2008. Through his college career he has

completed co-op positions with construction management companies The Lathrop

Co. and Dugan and Meyers Construction Co. He also has worked, and currently

works with Dr. Chou (Transportation Engineering Professor) on his Pavement

Management Information Systems for Municipalities projects. Through his

course work and co-op position experiences Ben is familiar with many of the

Microsoft programs, Auto-CAD, GPS/GIS systems, Rhino-3D Graphics, as well

as some aspects of Pro-Log and Scheduling programs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADAM R. SZABO

Adam Szabo is completing a Bachelors of Science degree in civil engineering

along with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Toledo.

The University Toledo has a reputable and ABET accredited engineering

program. During his time at the University of Toledo Adam has received training

in the fields necessary to become proficient in a civil engineering work

environment. This training not only included technical expertise, but also

incorporated skill sets such as communication, teamwork, and ethical

considerations. His co-ops at the Ohio Department of Transportation were also of

great benefit, giving him real world experience and education outside the

classroom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


App-78


App-79


App-80


App-81


App-82


App-83


App-84


App-85


App-86

VII. Project Grading Guidelines

CIVE 4750 Spring 2008 C. Gruden, P.E.

Project Grading Guidelines

Overall

Is it well presented, well thought out report that we are pleased to present to the client and

the public?

Content

Is information necessary to reasonably estimate the cost provided?

Is content technically accurate?

Is content relevant and timely?

Are the objectives in the scope met?

o ODOT: The Client has specific economic goals. Are they met?

Is it clear the client needs were understood and addressed?

Is the technical level appropriate?

Is the engineering analysis sound and clearly presented?

Are claims, conclusions and recommendations supported by the evidence and analysis?

Is the report free of gaps, foggy areas, and needless details?

Are constraints clearly identified and met?

Is the project economically feasible?

Is the economic analysis sound?

Does everything fit into a cohesive whole (ODOT: is it functional?, CR: Is the theme

consistent and marketable? Is the infrastructure appropriate?)

Drawings

Are all drawings necessary for clarity provided?

Are drawings accurate?

Are drawings well presented?

Engineering Calculations (Quantitative Analysis)

Used appropriately?

Assumptions clear?

Results clearly presented?

Specifications

Are clear specifications sufficient to provide a reasonable cost provided or referenced?

Are specifications accurate and appropriate?

Are specifications clearly presented?


App-87

Report Organization

Is the structure of the document visible at a glance?

Is there a clear line of reasoning that emphasizes what is important?

Is the abstract brief and descriptive?

Is everything easy to follow?

Is the material divided into easily digestible parts?

Executive Summary

Clear brief description?

Able to stand alone?

Good graphic design? Visually attractive? Some photos or figures?

Recommendations clear?

Report Visuals

Are graphs, charts, and photographs used where appropriate?

Are visuals clearly labeled?

Do visuals advance the argument being made?

Report Style

Is each sentence understandable when it is read?

Are common rules of grammar and spelling followed?

Has it clearly been proofread to prevent careless errors?

Is the tone appropriate for the audience?

Report Design

Is the graphic design need, attractive and inviting?

Are there adequate aids to navigation (headers, dividers, typestyles)?

Ethical, Legal, and Community considerations

Does the report indicate sound ethical judgement?

Are community needs and standards respected?

Have the environment requirements been met?

Reference: These guidelines are developed from the list on page 342 of the technical writing text

by Lannon

Documents

CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project Spring 2008 ODOT Henry ... · PDF fileProject Manager 2 Ohio Department of Transportation ... 15% before the year 2011. ... and those proposed by ODOT