Thoroughbred Engineering · Thoroughbred recommends the mat foundation bear on crushed stone having a thickness of six (6) inches. The stone should meet the requirements of a KyTC

Pearson & Peters Architects PLC 201 Kentucky Avenue Lexington, Kentucky 40502 c/o: Ms. Zempter, Mason County Public Library

Dear Mr. Pearson:

Thoroughbred Engineering provided a Geotechnical Evaluation for the Mason County Public Library expansion. On June 29, 2018, Mr. Darrin Croucher, P.E, S.I. met with you and Mr. Chris Kelly, P.E. of Poage Engineers to discuss a new layout plan. Included in this letter is a review of our discussion and additional recommendations to our evaluation.

Proposed Layout We understand you met with the Library Board and the plan for expanding to the lot southeast of the facility was not approved. You were asked to develop another option for the expansion. In our June 29, 2018 meeting, we discussed your new layout that increases the size of expanding the original design connected to the existing facility. The new layout expands the original concept footprint east into the amphitheater and includes a basement. A corridor will be constructed from the existing facility to the meeting room. Some of our discussion included:

Elevations - Your goal is to keep the first floor elevation the same as the existing facility. Based upon preliminary building elevations, you anticipate the planned building to have a basement and the basement will have a floor to ceiling height of about nine (9) feet.

Grading - The amphitheater will be demolished however, grading in the area will not include excavation to lower the area. A lower access roadway will extend around the stage area to the back of the existing facility.

Utilities - There are possible sewer, water and electric lines in the building area of the new layout. Construction of the new layout suggests these lines will need to be relocated. Undercutting of the subgrade is required to construct the basement and we anticipate the elevations of these utility lines to be within the undercut elevation. No backfill will be required as a part of removing the utility lines.

Storm Sewer - A storm sewer is located in the parking lot/roadway on the southwest side of the proposed building. We understand the storm sewer is about 8-10 feet deep. The building will be located no closer than ten (10) feet from underground utility. We do not anticipate the foundation of the proposed structure to be lower than the existing storm sewer. The storm sewer appears to be at an elevation that does not appear to influence the proposed foundation’s zone of influence. If for some reason the building layout is closer to the sewer than an one (1) unit horizontal to one (1) unit vertical relationship, please contact us for further information.

Foundation Type - The meeting room and basement structure will have a shallow mat foundation which will also be the floor of the basement. Although we believe much of the previously placed fill and debris will be removed due to the construction of the basement, some will likely be at the bearing elevation of the mat foundation.

Garage - In addition to keeping the meeting space connected to the existing facility, the library will construct a new garage structure on the south lot.

Thoroughbred Engineering REVISED January 24, 2019 | Mason County Public Library Expansion | Maysville, Kentucky

Recommendations Foundations Expansion Building

Thoroughbred Engineering completed a geotechnical evaluation. Based upon our exploration, we believe a Mat Foundation will provide the least risk associated with construction in the area south of the existing facility. The structure will include a basement that will extend into the subgrade.

Thoroughbred recommends the mat foundation bear on crushed stone having a thickness of six (6) inches. The stone should meet the requirements of a KyTC No. 57. The stone should be placed on top of a filter fabric overlapped not less than 6 inches and compacted in place with a plat compactor. The stone should extend beyond the basement walls at least two (2) foot. A perimeter foundation drain (min. 6 inch diameter perforated pipe) should be installed below the crushed stone and exit (day light) at two locations down gradient and into an approve storm drainage system. The pipe should allow water to move around and away from the structure. The foundation drain should be backfilled with the same crushed stone. We recommend a bearing capacity of 1,500 PSF for the mat foundation. Mat Foundation should be a minimum of 12 inches thick with a minimum thickness of 2 feet thick at wall sections. See Mat Foundation Detail below.

As you know, the area contains previously placed fill and debris. Although we believe much of the previously placed fill and debris will be removed with excavation to the bearing elevation, the depth of the excavation may not remove all previously placed fill. It is critical that Thoroughbred Engineering continue our services from the Geotechnical efforts into providing Kentucky Building Code Special Inspections. Our Mat Foundation recommendation assumes we will provide these services and verify our design intend based upon visual observation of the bearing surface. We simply can not account for the unknowns associated with the existing material.


Mat Foundation

Basement Walls

KyTC No. 57 Stone Min 4 Inches Thick between

filter fabric and geogridFilter Fabric

Excavation Meeting OHSA Requirements

Impervious Layer, Slopes Per Geo Report

Subgrade Slope Min. 1% from Center of Pad

Mat Foundation Detail Scale: N.T.S.

KyTC No. 57 Stone, Min. 24

inches wide

min. 6 inch diameter

perforated pipe

KyTC No. 57 Stone Min 8 Inches Thick

above Geogrid

Tensar Geogrid TX-5

Mat Foundation should extend a minimum of 12

inches past basement wall 15 Mil Polyethylene Liner (Min)


Corridor

The corridor will not be constructed with a basement. Thoroughbred Engineering recommends that the corridor be constructed with a structural slab bearing on a continuous footing. The continuous footing shall bear at a depth approximately equal to the depth of the mat foundation elevation (+/- 1 foot). The corridor and the expansion should be structurally connected. The corridor should not be structural connected to the existing building. We recommend an allowable bearing capacity for the subgrade beneath the corridor continuous footings to be 1,500PSF.

Existing Structures

Care should be taken not to undermine the foundation of structures (existing building, retaining walls, etc.) during excavation and construction of the new facilities. Depending on the contractor’s construction methods, underpinning may be required. Your contractor should supply the design team an excavation plan for review prior to the start of construction, approximately 2 weeks.

Soil Parameters

Based upon our understanding of the proposed structure and the material we encountered during exploration, tested in our laboratory and other information, we would provide the following soil parameters.

Soil Parameters

Parameter Value

Unit Weight 120 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction 20º

Active Pressure Coefficient 0.20

Active Lateral Earth Pressure (EFP) 65 pcf

At-Rest Pressure Coefficient 0.66

At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure (EFP) 80

Passive Pressure Coefficent 2.04

Passive Lateral Earth Pressure (EFP) 245


Closing We appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with you on this project. Please contact us with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Thoroughbred Engineering

Jordan P. Haney, E.I.T, MSCE, S.I. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. Staff Engineer Principal Engineer

Mason County Public Library 218 East Third Street Maysville, Kentucky C. 502.395.0210 c/o: Mr. Josh Ives, AIA - Pearson Peters Architects Mr. Chris S. Kelly, PE - Poage Engineers

Dear Ms. Valerie Zempter:

We have completed our geotechnical services for the proposed addition located at the corner of East Third Street and Mulberry Alley in Maysville, Kentucky. Our services were completed in general accordance with our executed agreement dated April 4, 2016.

We visited the site on April 20-21, 2016 and explored the site by drilling six (6) borings and excavating one (1) Test Pit. This report provides an executive summary, and a summary of our observations along with recommendations meeting the geotechnical requirements for

Chapter 18 of the 2013 Kentucky Building Code.

Please review the information, and let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for providing Thoroughbred Engineering the opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Thoroughbred Engineering,

Jeremy Duncan, E.I.T., S.I. Staff Engineer

Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. Principal Engineer

Thoroughbred Engineering146 South Broadway | Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 | P. 502.863.1756

Geotechnical Evaluation

May 20, 2016 | Mason County Public Library | 218 East Third Street | Maysville, Kentucky

Thoroughbred Engineering Mason County Public Library | 218 East Third Street | Maysville, Kentucky | Geotechnical Evaluation | May 20, 2016

Executive Summary We understand the Mason County Library is planning to expand their operation at the East Third Street facility. Their expansion includes adding on to the current building with a community room, storage, kitchen, management/classrooms, a vestibule and media area.

During the proposal process, we were supplied with past geotechnical information on the existing library building. The building showed signs relating to movement in the foundation and/or concrete slab on-grade. It is understood that fill material had been placed on-site prior to the construction. This fill was placed under the existing building, parking lot and amphitheater. Thoroughbred Engineering’s scope of services was to evaluate the subgrade for the future expansion and provide recommendations for construction per Chapter 18 of the Kentucky Building Code and the request for proposal.

To complete our evaluation, we were supplied with a requested boring location plan. Page eight (8) of this report contains a Boring and Test Pit Location Map where our exploration efforts occurred. We made efforts to bore in the locations supplied however, in some locations this simply could not be completed. There was not sufficient room to maneuver a drill rig into the requested locations. Also, large concrete foundation pieces were in the existing fill which made it difficult to impossible to penetrate through the material. The unaccessible locations were located at the back of the building in the sidewalk area. The areas that were impossible to penetrate a depth of 25 feet included B-1, B-5 and B-6. Based upon our achievable efforts and the material encountered, along with a review of past geotechnical evaluations, we feel we obtained sufficient information to evaluate the site and its characteristics.

We would describe the subsurface conditions in the proposed building area in following general terms:

Eight (8) inches of topsoil or pavement underlaid by ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet of construction rubble, large concrete boulders, brick, topsoil, burnt material, clay, silt and sand followed by five (5) feet of a low resistance clay, followed by low or non-plastic sands to a depth of 70 to 80 feet.

During the drilling process sands heaved 20 to 30 feet in Boring, B-2, pressurized sands traveled back through our hollow stem augers. See Photo #5 on page 20 of this report. These heaving sands made it impossible to sample in elevations of boring, B-2 from 35 feet to 78.5 feet below subgrade elevation although we were able to observe material from the augering process.

We have been provided some information on an anticipated building. We would anticipate the structure to be loaded similarly to the existing library and other libraries we have completed in the past. We anticipate the proposed structure to match the existing structure in both facade and structure, clear span, etc.

After our on-site activities, we generated a preliminary findings report and distributed it to you, Pearson Peters Architects, and Poage Engineers. We also meet with members of the design team (Pearson Peters and Poage Engineers) to discuss our findings. Our preliminary report provided three main issues that we required members of the design team to address prior to us providing final recommendations. Those issues include: foundation type, Seismic Design Class and the property appearing to be located in a Flood Plain Zone. It appears we were able to address the Flood Plain Zone however, due to the high potential of liquefaction and lateral spreading in the soils, we could not determine a Seismic Design Class or foundation type. Liquefaction and a lateral spreading analysis was not included in our scope of services. Your structural engineer, Poage Engineers, needs us to determine the Seismic Design Class as they will use that information to design the building and the structural members. At the present time, we believe the Seismic Design Class will be “E” or “F”.


Conclusion We were provided geotechnical information in reports that had been completed where the existing structure is located. That information explored the site to about 25 feet below the subgrade elevation. No one could have anticipated encountering the heaving sands. We can not provide a Seismic Design Class without a Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Analysis as those sands are highly suspect to liquefaction. As such we recommend further evaluation be completed on the site. If you decide to move forward with the project, you should approve us to complete a Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Analysis.

Please review this document in its entirety and let us know how you would like to proceed.


IBC/KBC Section 1803 - Geotechnical Investigation Summary Table

Item Response

1803.2 - Investigation Requested A geotechnical evaluation was requested by an RFP from Poage Engineers.

1803.3 - Basis of Investigation Our evaluation included observation, SPT testing/drilling, laboratory testing and test pits.

1803.3.1 - Scope of Investigation Our exploration included six (6) borings and one (1) test pit, laboratory testing, visual observation, historic research, etc. Exploration areas were determined by the RFP and Mr. Croucher.

1803.3.1 - Registered Design Professionals (RDP)

Your RDP is Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. - KY Lic #30150,

1803.4 - Qualified Representative On-Site (QROS)

Your QROS was Mr. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. - KY Lic #30150 and Mr. Jeremy Duncan E.I.T., S.I.

1803.5.1 - Soil Classifications We classified representative materials per USCS. Laboratory results showed soils to be a Low Plasticity Clay (CL), Poorly Graded Sand (SP) and a Poorly Graded Sand with Clay (SP-SC)

1803.5.2 - Questionable Soils We observed undocumented fill material and construction debris in the top 15 feet of the site. Adjacent buildings appear to show signs of settlement both overall and differential.

1803.5.3 - Expansive Soils Soil showed a “Very Low” potential expansion.

1803.5.4 - Ground Water Table Ground water was encountered at boring, B-2 at 23.5 feet deep however, see Section 1804.4 Grading and fill in flood hazard areas.

1803.5.5 - Deep Foundations We recommend a Liquefaction Analysis be completed prior to us determining a foundation type.

1803.5.6 - Rock Strata Rock strata is identified by the Kentucky Geologic Survey on the Maysville West 24K Quadrangle as the Modern Ohio River Alluvium which is part of the Quaternary Period. The primary lithology is silt, sand and clay. The area is noted as Non-Karst.

1803.5.7 - Excavation Near Foundations

Foundations near the existing building may influence the proposed structure. We could not complete this analysis until a foundation type is determined.

1803.5.8 - Compacted Fill Material We could not complete this analysis until a foundation type is determined.

1803.5.9 - Controlled Low-Strength Material

We could not complete this analysis until a foundation type is determined.

1803.5.10 - Alternate Setback and Clearance

We could not complete this analysis until a foundation type is determined.

1803.5.11 - Seismic Design Categories C thru F

For foundation design, our geotechnical services would suggest a Site Class of “E” or “F”. Additional analysis is required.

Geotechnical Investigation Summary The IBC/KBC Table below provides a summary of our services for the project as they relate to the 2013 Kentucky Building Code.

IBC/KBC Section 1804 - Excavation, Grading and Fill

Item Response

1804.1 Excavation near foundations

Further analysis will be required once we know more about the chosen foundation.

1804.2 Placement of backfill Depending on the finish floor elevation and the foundation type, placement of backfill against walls will be required.

1804.3 Site Grading Site grading should provide positive drainage away from the proposed facility. Section 1804.3 for additional information.

1804.4 Grading and fill in flood hazard areas

Our review of mapping by FEMA.GOV indicates the site appears to be located in a flood hazard area. We would suggest a licensed professional surveyor review the site information and provide comment prior to us providing recommendations. See Section 1804.4 for additional information.

1804.5 Compacted fill material Additional information is required to determine a finish floor elevation and the need for compacted fill material.

1804.6 Controlled low-strength material (CLSM)

CLSM could be an option for the proposed construction as backfilling would seem to be needed. Additionally information about the project design is needed for recommendations.

IBC/KBC Section 1805 - Damproofing and Waterproofing1805.1 General Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about

the proposed construction.

1805.2 Damproofing Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction.

1805.3 Waterproofing Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction.

1805.3.1 Floors Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction.

1805.3.3 Joints and penetrations Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction.

1805.4 Subsoil drainage system Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction.


http://FEMA.GOV

IBC/KBC Section 1808 - Foundations

Item Response

1808.2 Design for capacity and settlement

Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction.

1808.4 Vibratory loads We do not anticipate vibratory loads as a part of the proposed construction.

1808.5 Shifting or moving soils Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction however, since soils in the area are shifting or moving, the building code requires the foundations to be embedded to a sufficient depth to ensure stability. If shallow foundations are selected as an option, the foundation would need to extend a minimum of 10-15 feet below the existing grade of the parking lot.

1808.6 Design for expansive soils See section 1808.6.

1808.7 Foundations on or adjacent to slopes

We have not been provided an anticipated grading plan. However, if slopes are greater that 1 unit vertical and 3 units horizontal, we would recommend a slope stability analysis be completed. Currently, this analysis is not part of our scope of services. Additionally, due to the building being constructed within or near a flood plain area, see requirements in 1804.4 of this report.

1808.8 Concrete foundations Once a foundation type is selected, we will provide recommendations in our final report.

1808.9 Vertical masonry foundation elements

Vertical masonry foundation elements are not proposed for this project.


Boring Location and Test Pit Location Map The areas that we explored by drilling and backhoe are shown below.


B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-6

B-5

TP-1

Test Pit, TP-#

Boring, B-#

Legend


IBC/KBC 1803.2 - Investigation Requested We were contacted by Mr. Josh Ives, AIA to pe r fo rm a geo techn i ca l eva lua t i on and authorization was provided by Ms. Valerie Zempter of the Mason County Library.

We understand the Mason County Library is planning to expand. Their options include adding on to the current facility or obtaining additional land in another location and building a new building. Thoroughbred is providing a geotechnical evaluation of the current property located at East Third Street and Mulberry Alley in Maysville, Kentucky.

IBC/KBC 1803.3 - Basis of Investigation To explore the subsurface conditions, we utilized our geotechnical drill rig and standard backhoe. The drill rig penetrated the subgrade using 4 1/4-inch O.D. augers. We obtained resistance measurements by the Standard Penetration Test (STP) test method, using an automatic hammer system operated in general accordance with ASTM D1586. We obtained soil samples using a split-barrel sampler. We also obtained a bulk sample from cuttings of the augers. Samples were taken back to our laboratory for testing.

In addition to the drilling efforts, we used a standard backhoe to excavate one (1) test pit to observe material and evaluate it for consistency. The test pit excavation extended to a depth of six (6) feet. Drilling efforts extended to 78.5 feet. Specific information about our exploration can be observed in our Exploration Logs in the appendix of this report.

IBC/KBC 1803.3.1 - Scope of Investigation Our Scope of Investigation included exploring seven (7) locations, laboratory testing, visual observation, historic research, etc. per Chapter 18 of the Kentucky Building Code. The locations of the borings and the test pit were determined by the design professional and selected by the Registered Design Professional (RDP), Mr. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I., Kentucky License #30150.

IBC/KBC 1803.4 - Qualified Representative On-Site (QROS) The QROS for our exploration were Mr. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. and Mr. Jeremy C. Duncan, E.I.T., S.I.


IBC/KBC 1803.5 - Investigated Conditions Mr. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. and Mr. Jeremy Duncan, E.I.T, S.I. visited the site on April 20 and 21, 2016, to complete the proposed geotechnical services.

The site is currently being used by the library. There is a parking lot to the south of the existing structure and an amphitheater to the south east. The grade change from the parking lot to the bottom of the amphitheater is about 15 feet. The entire site drains to a creek located on the east side of the library. We were informed by the library electrician that water from the creek sometimes floods the area reaching about 20 to 30 feet horizontally from the library basement.

We observed the pavement in the parking lot, the library sidewalks and other buildings in the area. The parking lot has had some recent underground utility excavations completed through it. There were several patches. However, there are signs of distress in the pavement that would appear to be from movement in the subgrade.

Sidewalks are a good sign of how the subgrade is acting. We observed control joints between sections of the sidewalks to not be aligned and the sidewalks appear to have moved from their original placement location. This typically occurs as a result of heaving of the underlying material, frost or very poor bearing conditions (settlement).

The building located just south east of the Library has several signs of movement as there has been masonry joint refilling along the top of the building. The building has obviously moved beyond its construction and design limitations. Photograph #8 on page 21 shows the masonry joint cracking that has been refilled.

As previously mentioned, LAW Engineering provided geotechnical services on the existing structure. Our understanding of the site is that it was filled to the grade it is currently at. The fill material was not placed as “Engineered Fill”. Engineered Fill is material placed for the purpose of supporting the intended construction, generally placed in lift thicknesses ranging from 6 to 12 inches, having some moisture content that allows for proper compaction. Compaction machinery applying effort that is achievable for a building similar to this of about 95 to 100 percent of the materials maximum dry density as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), test method, D-698.

While on-site, we did walk through the existing structure in order to observe any signs of distress. In general, we did not see any. The floor between the main structure and the most recent addition, south, seemed to be somewhat un-level but it was difficult for us to determine.

Existing Utilities Existing utilities are located in all areas of the proposed construction. We observed underground lines marked for gas, electric and storm sewer lines, etc. There may be others. Design and construction should include provisions for such. At a minimum, Kentucky 811, should be contacted prior to any excavation activities on-site. Private lines may require a utility location contractor to be retained.


As a part of our site services, we reviewed several known geological resources in order to help us understand more about site conditions. Specifically, we visited the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web Soil Survey database, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Kentucky Geological Services (KGS), Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System and others. Information from our review is included in this report.

USDA Soil Survey Our USDA search area was about 2.6 acres of the site and surrounding area. The specific area is shown on the next page in the USDA map. The USDA indicated soils in the area to be clayey residuum weathered from limestone and shale.

We also reviewed the USDA database for risks associated to concrete construction, steel and dwellings without basements. Results of our efforts are below:

Our review of the USDA database information indicated the on-site soils have a moderate risk associated with corrosion to concrete as shown in the table above.

The USDA database for dwellings without Basements indicated the building are not limited by the on-site soils.


The USDA indicates the on-site soils have a high rating to Corrosion of Steel (see area noted in red on the aerial photo to the right). Although it is not in our current scope of services to test the material for the materials potential for electrochemical or chemical action, our report includes provisions to help reduce the likelihood of the material prematurely degrading overtime. Our recommendations include concrete that is directly in contact with soils be more water resistant. This would include foundation or exterior sidewalks. We do not anticipate this being a requirement for concrete slab on-grades as we anticipate floor slabs to include a vapor barrier. The risk associated with this can be lowered by reducing the concrete’s water to cement (W/C) ratios and utilizing a higher strength concrete and/or admixtures approved by the project specifications.

Corrosion of Steel—Mason County, Kentucky

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

4/22/2016Page 1 of 3

4280

810

4280

830

4280

850

4280

870

4280

890

4280

910

4280

930

4280

950

4280

810

4280

830

4280

850

4280

870

4280

890

4280

910

4280

930

4280

950

259670 259690 259710 259730 259750 259770 259790 259810 259830 259850 259870 259890

259670 259690 259710 259730 259750 259770 259790 259810 259830 259850 259870 259890

38° 38' 40'' N

83° 4

5' 4

1'' W

38° 38' 40'' N

83° 4

5' 3

1'' W

38° 38' 35'' N

83° 4

5' 4

1'' W

38° 38' 35'' N

83° 4

5' 3

1'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS840 50 100 200 300

Feet0 15 30 60 90

MetersMap Scale: 1:1,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

USDA | Soil Survey Database, Corrosion of Steel Map


IBC/KBC 1803.5.1 - Soil Classifications During the course of our work, we selected representative soil samples for laboratory testing. We are still in the process of completing our testing and results will follow in our final report. Laboratory testing includes:

‣ Natural Moisture Content Test

‣ Atterberg Limits Test

‣ Percent Finer than #200 Sieve Test

‣ Expansion Index Test

‣ Standard Proctor

In general, the material we encountered and have tested samples in our laboratory that appear to be Low Plasticity Clay (CL), Poorly Graded Sand (SP) and a Poorly Graded Sand with Clay (SP-SC) per the a Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classification.

IBC/KBC 1803.5.2 - Questionable Soils We observed undocumented fill material and construction debris in the top 15 feet of the parking lot, and amphitheater, the proposed building area. This material consisted of construction rubble, large concrete boulders, brick, topsoil, burnt material, clay, silt and sand.

Concrete pieces were observed vertical in the test pit suggesting the material was not placed in lifts as engineered fill. No observation information has been provided to us.

Our experience with materials similar to those observed on this site has shown that you could anticipate settlement and movement of the structure however, there is no way to anticipate the actual amount of movement.

IBC/KBC 1803.5.3 - Expansive Soils We encountered Expansive Soils as outlined by the Kentucky Building Code. A soil sample was tested to have a “Very Low” potential expansion.

IBC/KBC 1803.5.4 - Ground Water Table Water readings were taken at a period of 24 hours after our drilling efforts were conducted. Boring B-2 showed a water level of 23.5 feet deep. Each of the other borings were dry at the 24 hour reading period. Although the ground water table is beyond 10 feet of the foundation, the area appears to be located in or near a flood plain zone. We would anticipate the water levels in the subgrade to greatly fluctuate.

IBC/KBC 1803.5.5 - Deep Foundations Due to the material we encountered, we recommend a Liquefaction Analysis be completed prior to us determining a foundation type.

IBC/KBC 1803.5.6 - Rock Strata Rock strata is identified by the Kentucky Geologic Survey on the Maysville West 24K Quadrangle as the Modern Ohio River Alluvium which is part of the Quaternary Period. The primary lithology is mixed sediments (silt, sand and clay). The area is noted as Non-Karst.


IBC/KBC 1803.5.6 - Rock Strata, Continued Information by the KGS on the Modern Ohio River Alluvium is showed to the right. The Specific Masyville West 24K Quadrangle is show below.

IBC/KBC 1803.5.7 - Excavation near Foundations Foundation near the existing building will most likely be influence the proposed structure. Bracing of the existing structure will be needed if excavation occurs below the existing foundation or walls. We can not complete an analysis until a foundation type is determined.

Site

KGS: Maysville West 24K Quadrangle


IBC/KBC 1803.5.8 - Compacted fill material Additional information is required to determine a suggested finish floor elevation and the need for compacted fill material. We will provide more specific information about the compacted fill material when the foundation type is determined.

We do not anticipate the old fill material will be suitable to be used as fill material for the proposed structure. The material should be wasted off site.

KBC Chapter 17, Special Inspections of Soils and Concrete Construction is required for this project during construction.

Boring Location, B-3


KBC 1803.5.9 - Controlled Low Strength Material Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) is a mixture of cement, sand and water in a flowable form that is often used as backfill material specifically to fill undercut excavations, backfill around pipes or in areas where compaction equipment simply can not maneuver.

Based upon our understanding of the project and the subgrade conditions, Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) appears suitable for the proposed construction as needed. If CLSM material is used, CLSM shall meet the requirements of the project, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) latest standards and as noted below:

‣ A sel f - level ing and sel f - compact ing, cementitious material with an unconfined compressive strength of an excavatable type. This includes a minimum strength of 50 psi at 28 days. The one-year strength shall not exceed 150 psi.

‣ Sources and proportions of CLSM ingredients: Prior to the start of CLSM placement, the CONTRACTOR shall submit a description of the proposed CLSM mixture design. Based on the application, the Thoroughbred Engineer may require the CONTRACTOR to submit appropriate laboratory or field test data documenting compliance to specified material and or performance properties.

‣ CLSM shall be manufactured with materials conforming to the standards listed below. The Thoroughbred Engineer shall approve the use of all non-conforming materials. Approval shall be based on documentation that controlled low strength material mixtures manufactured with the non- conforming materials meet the

specified plastic and hardened properties and are suited for the intended application.

‣ Hydraulic Cement • AASHTO M 85 or M 240

‣ Fly Ash • AASHTO M 295

‣ Granulated Blast Furnace Slag • AASHTO M 302

‣ Fine Aggregate • AASHTO M 6

‣ Coarse Aggregate • AASHTO M 80

‣ Lightweight Aggregate • AASHTO M 195

‣ Water • AASHTO M 157

‣ Chemical Admixtures • AASHTO M 194

‣ Air Entrainment Admixtures • Approved by the a Thoroughbred Engineer.

‣ Foaming Admixture • ASTM C 869

‣ The flowable material shall have a minimum flow of 8 inches tested in accordance with ASTM D6103.

‣ Unit weight of the material shall not exceed 145 pounds per cubic foot.

‣ CLSM shall be proportioned by the ready mixed concrete supplier on the basis of field experience and/or laboratory trial mixtures to produce a cohesive and non-segregating mixture meeting the specified properties.

‣ The addition of water and admixtures on the job-site is permitted. The amount of water and admixture added shall be recorded. The CLSM mixture shall be mixed for a minimum of 30 revolutions after the addition of the water or admixture.

‣ Material shall not be placed on frozen ground. The ambient temperature shall be 35 deg F and rising at the time of placement.

‣ CLSM may be placed in confined spaces containing standing water.


IBC/KBC 1803.5.10 - Alternate Setback and Clearance The site may contain a proposed fill slope on the site. We have not been provided a proposed grading plan. If slopes are required, they should be designed to a minimum slope of 1 vertical to 3 horizontal (1V:3H).

The proposed construction should not exceed the required setback of a minimum of H/3 feet. Please reference the following figure 1808.7.1 of the IBC 2012 for additional explanation.

A detailed slope stability analysis of the proposed fill slopes were not included in our current scope of services.

IBC 2012, Figure 1808.7.1


IBC/KBC 1803.5.11 - Seismic Design Categories C Through F Based upon the unknown liquefaction potential in the soils, we can not determine the actual Site Class however, we would anticipate a Site Class of “E” or “F”. Please approve us to proceed with a liquefaction and lateral spreading analysis in order for us to determine the site class.

IBC/KBC 1804 - Excavation, Grading and Fill IBC/KBC 1804.1 - Excavation near foundations The existing structure is in close proximity to the proposed structure. Further analysis will be required once we know more about the chosen foundation type to determine the specific recommendations.

IBC/KBC 1804.2 - Placement of backfill Depending on the finish floor elevation and the foundation type, placement of backfill against walls will be required. We will provide information about this in our final report.

IBC/KBC 1804.3 - Site Grading We have not been provided a site grading plan. However, we anticipate grade work to be completed for the proposed construction. With that said, improper drainage and water from gutters that drain to the proposed construction could have a negative effect on its performance.

We recommend ground and surface water be positively drained away from the proposed foundations. If allowed to migrate to the current or proposed foundations, potential for settlement could result.

As mentioned, we do not believe the existing fill material is suitable to be reused. This material will need to be wasted off-site.


IBC/KBC 1804.4 - Grading and fill in flood hazard areas Our review of mapping by FEMA.GOV indicates the site appears to be located in a flood hazard area. We would suggest a licensed professional surveyor review the site information and provide comment prior to us providing recommendations. See FEMA.GOV Flood Map on the next page.

fema.gov, April 19, 2016, 21161C0094E.png

Site

http://FEMA.GOV

http://fema.gov

http://FEMA.GOV

http://fema.gov

http://fema.gov

http://fema.gov


IBC/KBC 1804.5 - Compacted fill material See IBC/KBC 1803.5.8 - Compacted fill materials.

IBC/KBC 1804.6 - Controlled low-strength materials (CLSM) See KBC 1803.5.9 - Controlled Low Strength Material standards.

IBC/KBC 1805 - Damproofing & Waterproofing IBC/KBC 1805.1 - General Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about he proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1805.2 - Damproofing Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about he proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1805.3 - Waterproofing Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about he proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1805.3.3 - Joints and Penetrations Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about he proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1805.4 - Subsoil drainage system Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about he proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1808 - Foundations IBC/KBC 1808.2 Design for Capacity & Settlement Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about he proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1808.4 - Vibratory loads We do not anticipate vibratory loads as a part of the proposed construction.

IBC/KBC 1808.5 - Shifting or moving soils Prior to us providing final recommendations, additional information is required about the proposed construction however, since soils in the area are shifting or moving, the building code requires the foundations to be embedded to a sufficient depth to ensure stability. If shallow foundations are selected as an option, the foundation would need to extend a minimum of 10-15 feet below the existing grade of the parking lot.

IBC/KBC 1808.6 - Design for expansive soils We encountered Expansive Soils as outlined by the Kentucky Building Code. Laboratory testing is in process and the actual swell potential of the material will be determined for our final report.

IBC/KBC 1808.7 - Foundations on or adjacent to slopes We have not been provided an anticipated grading plan. However, if slopes are greater that 1 unit vertical and 3 units horizontal, we would recommend a slope stability analysis be completed. Currently, this analysis is not part of our scope of services. Additionally, due to the building being constructed within or near a flood plain area, see requirements in 1804.4 of this report.

IBC/KBC 1808.8 Concrete Foundation and Slab On-Grade No information can be provided at this time as we recommend a liquefaction analysis.



Photo #1 - View of Parking Lot. Photo #2 - View of Drill Locations, B-5 & B-6.

Photo #3 - View of Drill Location, B-4. Photo #4 - View of Large Rock/Piece of Foundation from Excavation of Test Pit.


Photo #6 - View of Drill Location, B-1. Photo #7 - View of Drill Location, B-2.

Photo #5 - View of Drill Location, B-2 and heaving sands.

Photo #6 - View of Drill Location, B-3.


Photo #8 - View of Building next to Property.

Refill of Mortar Joint

Refill of Mortar Joint

Photo #9 - View of Amphitheater.


Conclusion Our services have been completed in accordance with our authorized scope of work and in accordance with generally accepted practice in the fields of geotechnical and foundation engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the data revealed by this investigation. We are not responsible for any conclusions or opinions drawn from the data included herein, other than those specifically stated, nor are the recommendations presented in this report intended for direct use as construction specifications.

This report is intended for use with regard to the specific project discussed herein and any changes in loads, structures, or locations should be brought to our attention so that we may determine how they may affect our conclusions. An attempt has been made to provide for normal contingencies but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction. If this should occur, or if additional or contradictory data are revealed in the future, we should be notified so that modifications to this report can be made, if necessary. If we do not review the relevant construction documents and witness the relevant construction operations, then we cannot be responsible for any problem, which may arise, from the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of this report or failure to comply with our recommendations.

Sincerely,


Jeremy Duncan, E.I.T., S.I. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. Staff Engineer Principal Engineer

Attachments: Boring & Test Pit Location Plan, Boring and Test Pit Logs and Laboratory Testing Data,


Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

SPT-1 1.5 0 2 4 7 -- -- -- --

SPT-2 1.5 0 6 2 2 4 6 -- -- -- --

SPT-3 1.5 0 8 1 2 5 -- -- -- --

SPT-4 0 4 0 2 50 0 4 50 -- -- -- --

SPT = Standard Penetration Test, ST = Shelby Tube, SS = Split Spoon, GS = Grab Sample, RC = Rock Core, NMC = Natural Moisture Content

Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

CMN3CWQQ

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)

Borehole Information

Borehole IDBorehole #

EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

1B-1

0

0

4 20 164 20 16

B-192 7 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale

Sub-Surface HorizonsLi

thol

ogy

Borehole Location

Surface Elevation

Sampling Information

Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


8 5

Page 2


Drilling Information Borehole Statistics Bac fill Information

Drilling Company Drill

Rig Make

Drill Rig Model

Hammer Type

Hammer Weight

Hammer Drop Height

uger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg.)

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Drilling Total

Rock Drilling

Depth to Water

Water Elevation

Date of Reading

Borehole Backfilled

Backfill Material/s

# of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

55

140 lbs

30 inches

3-1/4 ID HS

No Coring

uger Drilling

-90

84 2 feet

8 5 feet

8 5 feet

es

Cuttings

0

N/

No

Notes

Powered by gLog TM


Photo of ppro imate Boring Location

Boring B-1

Elevations ere .

92 7 feet

Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

99

98

97

96

95

94

9

92

91

TOPSOIL - 6 inches

SPT-1 1.5 1.0 2-2-3 5 -- -- -- --

SPT-2 1.5 0.5 2-5-6 11 -- -- -- --

SPT-3 1.5 0. - -12 1 -- -- -- --


Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

CMN3CWQQ

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)

Tristate Driller

Tristate elper



EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

2B-2

0

0

4 20 164 20 16

B-299 8 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


thol

ogy

Borehole Location

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


FILL - sampled as MEDIUM, light brown and gray lean clay (CL), with rock fragments, moist

FILL - sampled as STIFF with E STIFF one to SOFT, gray with light brown lean clay (CL), with rock fragments, moist

FILL - sampled as STIFF, dark to light brown and gray lean clay (CL), with rock fragments, moist

Page 2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

8

82

81

80

79

SPT- 1.5 1.2 - - 11 -- -- -- --

SPT-5 1.5 1.3 3-2-1 3 -- -- -- --

SPT-6 1.5 1.5 1- -5 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

Borehole Location-2B-2

0

0

20 1620 16

B-2. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale

Sub-Surface Horizons

Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing

FILL - sampled as STIFF with E STIFF one to SOFT, gray with light brown lean clay (CL), with rock fragments, moist


FILL - sampled as SOFT, black ash coal, with brick fragments, with sand, moist

LE CL (CL) - SOFT to STIFF to MEDIUM, gray, with rock fragments, with sand, moist

Page 3

22

23

2

25

26

2

2

2

30

31

32

33

6

5

3

2

1

0

6

6

6

SPT-7 1.5 1.5 3-2- 6 -- -- -- --

SPT-8 1.5 1.5 O - O -O

0 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-2. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing

LE CL (CL) - SOFT to STIFF to MEDIUM, gray, with rock fragments, with sand, moist


POO L DED S D (SP-SC) - E LOOSE, brown, with clay, wet

(all ial)

Enco ntered water at 22.0 feet

POO L DED S D (SP-SC) - E LOOSE to MEDIUM, brown,

with clay, wet(all ial)

Page

3

35

36

3

3

3

0

1

2

3

5

66

65

6

63

62

61

60

5

5

5

56

55

SPT- 1.5 1.5 -15-11 26 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-2. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing

POO L DED S D (SP-SC) - E LOOSE to MEDIUM, brown, with

clay, wet(all ial)


POO L DED S D (SP) - MEDIUM, brown, wet(all ial)

o sampling was performed past 0 feet d e to hea ing sand material in a gers

Page 5

6

50

51

52

53

5

55

56

5

5

53

52

51

50

6

5

3




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-2. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing



Page 6

5

5

60

61

62

63

6

65

66

6

6

6

2

1

0

3

3

3

36

35

3

33

32

31




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-2. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing



Page

0

1

2

3

5

6

0

1

30

2

2

2

26

25

2

23

22

21

20

1




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-2. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing



ger ef sal at .5 feet

Page




Rig Make

Drill Rig Model

Hammer Type

Hammer Weight

Hammer Drop Height

uger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg.)

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Drilling Total

Rock Drilling

Depth to Water

Water Elevation

Date of Reading

Borehole Backfilled

Backfill Material/s

# of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

Tristate Drilling

CME

55

tomatic

140 lbs

30 inches

3-1/4 ID HS

No Coring

uger Drilling

-90

21.3 feet

.5 feet

.5 feet

es

Cuttings

0

N/

No

Notes

Powered by gLog TM



Boring B-2

. feet

Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

109

108

107

106

105

104

10

104

10

SPT-1 1.5 1.0 2-7-6 1 -- -- -- --

SPT-2 1.5 1 1 2-5-12 17 -- -- -- --

SPT-3 1.5 0.5 -12-6 18 -- -- -- --


Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

CMN3CWQQ

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)

Tristate Driller

Tristate elper



EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd DateB-

0

0

4 20 164 20 16

B-

109 8 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


thol

ogy

Borehole Location

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


TOPSOIL - 12 inches

Page 2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

9

92

91

SPT- 1.5 0.0 2-2-1 -- -- -- --

SPT-5 1.5 1.5 5 6 11 -- -- -- --

SPT-6 1.5 1.5 4 4 5 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

Borehole Location-B-

0

0

20 1620 16

B-

10 . feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing

11

12


LE CL (CL) - STIFF

Page 3

22

23

2

25

26

2

2

2

30

31

32

33

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

8

82

81

80

79

SPT-7 1.5 1.5 2 4 4 8 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

Borehole Location-B-

0

0

20 1620 16

B-

10 . feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


POO L DED S D (SP-SC) - LOOSE, brown, with clay,

25 0

Page 4




Rig Make

Drill Rig Model

Hammer Type

Hammer Weight

Hammer Drop Height

uger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg.)

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Drilling Total

Rock Drilling

Depth to Water

Water Elevation

Date of Reading

Borehole Backfilled

Backfill Material/s

# of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

Tristate Drilling

CME

55

tomatic

140 lbs

30 inches

3-1/4 ID HS

No Coring

uger Drilling

-90

84 8 feet

25 0 feet

25 0 feet

es

Cuttings

0

N/

No

Notes

Powered by gLog TM



Boring B-

10 . feet

Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

108

107

106

105

104

10

102

101

100

SPT-1 1.5 0.6 5 1 4 -- -- -- --

SPT-2 1.5 0 9 2 4 17 -- -- -- --

SPT-3 1.5 0.5 4 5 5 10 -- -- -- --


Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

CMN3CWQQ

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)

Tristate Driller

Tristate elper



EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

4B-4

0

0

4 20 164 20 16

B-4108 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


thol

ogy

Borehole Location

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


SP LT - 6 inches

STIFF to , brown and gray lean clay (CL),

with brick fragments, with rock fragments, moist

D - 1 inches, with light brown lean clay (CL), wet

FILL - sampled as MEDIUM, brown sand, with light brown lean clay (CL), moist

Page 2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

99

98

97

96

95

94

9

92

91

90

89

88

SPT- 1.5 1.5 20 5 25 -- -- -- --

SPT-5 1.5 1.5 2 4 6 10 -- -- -- --

SPT-6 1.5 1.5 4 5 4 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-4108. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


FILL - sampled as STIFF to E STIFF, brown and gray lean clay (CL), with brick fragments, with rock fragments, moist

POO L DE S D (SP-SC) - MEDIUM, brown, with clay, moist

LE CL (CL) - STIFF, brown, moist

Page 3

22

23

2

25

26

2

2

2

30

31

32

33

87

86

85

84

8

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

SPT-7 1.5 1.4 2 2 5 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

20 1620 16

B-4108. feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


POO L DE S D (SP-SC) - MEDIUM, brown, with clay, moist

25 0

Page 4




Rig Make

Drill Rig Model

Hammer Type

Hammer Weight

Hammer Drop Height

uger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg.)

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Drilling Total

Rock Drilling

Depth to Water

Water Elevation

Date of Reading

Borehole Backfilled

Backfill Material/s

# of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

Tristate Drilling

CME

55

tomatic

140 lbs

30 inches

3-1/4 ID HS

No Coring

uger Drilling

-90

8 feet

25 0 feet

25 0 feet

es

Cuttings

0

N/

No

Notes

Powered by gLog TM



Boring B-4

108. feet

Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

105

104

10

102

101

100

99

98

97

SPT-1 1.5 0.8 2 5 4 9 -- -- -- --

SPT-2 1.5 0 8 4 7 6 1 -- -- -- --

SPT-3 1.5 1 5 5 4 6 10 -- -- -- --


Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

CMN3CWQQ

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)



EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

5B-5

0

0

4 21 164 21 16

B-5105 8 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


thol

ogy

Borehole Location

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


4

9 0

Page 2




Rig Make

Drill Rig Model

Hammer Type

Hammer Weight

Hammer Drop Height

uger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg.)

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Drilling Total

Rock Drilling

Depth to Water

Water Elevation

Date of Reading

Borehole Backfilled

Backfill Material/s

# of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

Tristate Drilling

CME

55

tomatic

140 lbs

30 inches

3-1/4 ID HS

No Coring

uger Drilling

-90

106 8 feet

9 0 feet

9 0 feet

es

Cuttings

0

N/

No

Notes

Powered by gLog TM



Boring B-5

105.8 feet

Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

108

107

106

105

104

10

102

101

100

SPT-1 1.5 0.5 4 4 8 -- -- -- --

SPT-2 1.5 0 4 6 6 12 -- -- -- --

SPT-3 1.5 0.1 7 6 5 11 -- -- -- --


Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

CMN3CWQQ

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)



EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

6B-6

0

0

4 21 164 21 16

B-6108 2 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


thol

ogy

Borehole Location

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


4

Page 2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

99

98

97

96

95

94

9

92

91

90

89

88

SPT- 1.5 0.8 16 10 9 19 -- -- -- --




EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date


0

0

21 1621 16

B-6108.2 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


10 5

Page




Rig Make

Drill Rig Model

Hammer Type

Hammer Weight

Hammer Drop Height

uger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg.)

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Drilling Total

Rock Drilling

Depth to Water

Water Elevation

Date of Reading

Borehole Backfilled

Backfill Material/s

# of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

Tristate Drilling

CME

55

tomatic

140 lbs

30 inches

3-1/4 ID HS

No Coring

uger Drilling

-90

97 7 feet

10 5 feet

10 5 feet

es

Cuttings

0

N/

No

Notes

Powered by gLog TM



Boring B-6

108.2 feet

Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

Project Information

gLog Project ID

Project Number

Project Name

Project Location

Client

SXCR14AF

297

Key Personnel

Project Manager

Engineer/Geologist

Logged By

Driller

Helper (s)

est Pit Information

Test Pit IDTest Pit #

EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

11

0

0

4 21 164 21 16

TP-19 0 feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


thol

ogy

Test Pit Location

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


Page 2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

est Pit Information

Test Pit IDTest Pit #

EastingNorthing

Start DateEnd Date

Test Pit LocationTP-

0

0

TP-

feet

Elev

atio

nSc

ale

Dep

th S

cale

Dep

th S

cale


Lith

olog

y

Surface Elevation


Sam

ple

ID

Run

Leng

th

Rec

over

y

Blo

wC

ount

s

N-V

alue

NM

C (%

)

RQ

D (%

)

Har

dnes

s

Wea

ther

ing


Page 3

Excavator Information est Pit Statistics Bac fill Information

Company

Ma e

Model

Hammer Type

Hammer eight

Hammer Drop Height

Auger Si e

Core Si e

Drilling Method

Inclination (deg )

Surface Elevation

Bottom Elevation

Total Depth Total

Soil Total

Roc Total

Depth to ater

ater Elevation

Date of Reading

Test Pit Bac filled

Bac fill Material/s #

of Instruments

Instrument 1

Instrument 2

Instrument 3

Instrument 4

Surface Sealed

Sealed ith

Thoroughbred Eng

Bac hoe

Bac hoe

Test Pit

feet

feet

feet

es

Material

Powered by gLog TM


Photo of ppro imate Test Pit Location

Test Pit TP-

Notes

Photo of Test Pit

Test Pit TP-

feet

Thoroughbred Engineering146 South Broadway | Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 | 502.863.1756

297

5/4/16

Lab ID

Location ID

Depth (FT)

Sample Type

Natural Moisture

Content (%)

Plasticity Index

(%)

% Finer than No.

200

USCS Classification

Maximum Dry Density

(pcf)

Optimum Moisture

Content (%)

Unconfined Compressive Strength (ksf)

Expansive Index (EI 50)

Potential Expansion

Notes

1 B-1 0.0-1.5 SS 18.7%

2 3.0-4.5 SS 19.8%

3 6.0-7.5 SS 27.4%

4

5 B-2 0.0-1.5 SS 17.8%

6 3.0-4.5 SS 18.0%

7 6.0-7.5 SS 16.2%

8 8.5-10.0 SS 18.8% 20 87.0% CL

9 13.5-15.0 SS 25.7%

10 18.5-20.0 SS 28.0%

11 23.5-25.0 SS 18.6%

12 28.5-30.0 SS 23.9%

13 39.5-40.0 SS 20.7% NP 3.4% SP

14

15 B-3 0.0-1.5 SS 17.3%

16 3.5-5.0 SS 20.2%

17 6.0-7.5 SS 14.4%

18 14.0-15.5 SS 20.0%

19 18.0-19.5 SS 11.4%

20 23.5-25.0 SS 16.3% NP 11.5% SP-SC

21

22 B-4 0.5-2.0 SS 11.6%

23 2.0-3.5 SS 15.4%

24 6.0-7.5 SS 15.6%

25 9.0-10.5 SS 19.6%

26 13.5-15.0 SS 19.9% 19 80.5% CL

27 18.5-20.0 SS 9.3%

28 23.5-20.0 SS 20.9%

29

30 B-5 0.0-1.5 SS 20.9%

31 1.5-3.0 SS 12.9%

32 4.0-5.5 SS 27.9%

33 8.0-9.5 SS 0.9%

34

35 B-6 0.0-1.5 SS 18.8%

36 1.5-3.0 SS 17.1%

37 4.0-5.5 SS 26.1%

38 8.0-9.5 SS 17.0%

39

40 Bulk 1.0-2.0 BULK 17.7% 16 60.5% CL 102.8 19.8 20 Very Low414243444546474849505152535455

Project Name:

Project Location:

Laboratory Summary Report

Mason County Library

Maysville, Mason County, Kentucky

Project Number:

Date:

Mason County Library 297Date: Checked By: JAC

Depth (Ft) LL (%) PL (%) PI Nat. MC (%)

8.5-10.0 37 17 20 18.8%38.5-40.0 NP NP NP 20.7%23.5-25.0 NP NP NP 16.3%13.5-15.0 36 17 19 19.9%

1.0-2.0 37 21 16 17.7%


Bulk

Classification-Description

Light Brown & Gray Lean Clay (CL)Brown Poorly Graded Sand (SP)Brown Poorly Graded Sand with Clay (SP-SC)Brown Lean Clay (CL) with sand

Dark Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

B-2B-2B-3B-4

Project Name:

Sample ID

5/5/2016

Atterberg Limit Test Results - ASTM D4318

Project Number:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Plas

ticity

Inde

x (%

)

Liquid Limit (%)B-2 B-2 B-3 B-4 Bulk

CL-ML

CL

CH

MH

ML

"U" line

A - Line


Mason County Library Project Number: 297

Maysville, Mason County, Kentucky Date 5/5/2016

Lab ID Location ID Depth (FT) Sample Type Pre-Test Moisture

Contentt (%)

Post-Test Moisture Content

(%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Percent of Optimum

Compaction (%)

Expansion Index (EI50)

Protential Expansion

1 Bulk 1.0-2.0 Bulk 13.4% 26.5% 93.1 90.6% 20 Very Low

Project Name:

Project Location:

Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils ASTM D4829-03

0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 120.0 275.0 875.0 1440.0

Dia

l R

ea

din

gs (

in)

Time (min)

Soil Expansion Displacement

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP OF SOILS Client: Document Date: 5/4/2016Project: Date Sampled: 4/21/2016Job No.: Date Tested: 4/30/2016Tested By: Test Method: ASTM D698ASample Number: In-situ Moisture (%): 17.7%

Sample Location:Maximum Dry Density (PCF): Optimum Moisture (%): 19.8Soil Description:


Dark Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL)102.8

Mason County Public LibraryMason County Library297D. Brunker

Bulk

Bulk

95.0

100.0

105.0

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

Dry

Unit

Wei

ght,

pcf

Moisture content, percent

2.70

2.65

2.75

Mason County Public Library 218 East Third Street Maysville, Kentucky C. 502.395.0210 c/o: Mr. Jeff Pearon, AIA - Pearson Peters Architects Mr. Chris S. Kelly, PE - Poage Engineers

Dear Mr. Steve Parrott:

We have completed our geotechnical services for the proposed book mobile garage located at the corner of East Forth Street and Mulberry Alley in Maysville, Kentucky. Our services were completed in general accordance with our executed agreement dated June 12, 2018.

This report provides an executive summary, and a summary of our observations along with recommendations meeting the geotechnical requirements for Chapter 18 of the 2013 Kentucky Building Code.

Please review the information, and let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for providing Thoroughbred Engineering the opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Thoroughbred Engineering,

Mr. Jordan Haney, E.I.T., S.I. Construction Group Manager

Darrin E. Croucher, P.E., S.I. Principal Engineer

238 Jefferson Street | Lexington, Kentucky 40509 | P. 502.863.1756

Geotechnical Evaluation Revised January 28, 2019 | Mason County Public Library Bookmobile Garage

Thoroughbred Engineering Georgetown. Lexington. Shelbyville.

Thoroughbred Engineering Revised January 28, 2019 | Mason County Public Library Bookmobile Garage

General Information KBC Section 1801 & 1803 This Thoroughbred Engineering Geotechnical Evaluation was completed in general accordance with our Scope of Services and Chapter 18 of the 2013 Kentucky Building Code (KBC). Specifically, we conducted our efforts in general accordance with Sections 1803.2 and are reporting per Section 1803.6 of the KBC. We used the Allowable Stress Design method.

Investigation Requested By

Item ResponseCompany Name Mason County Public LibraryContact Ms. Valerie ZempterAddress 218 East Third StreetCity/State/Zip Maysville, Kentucky 40156Phone 606.564.3286Email [email protected] Name: MCPL Bookmobile Garage

Thoroughbred Geotechnical Team

Item Individual

Registered Design Professional Mr. Darrin E. Croucher, P.E. | KY License 30150Qualified Rep on Site Mr. Jordan P. Haney, E.I.T, M.S.C.E.Report Preparer Mr. Jordan P. Haney, E.I.T, M.S.C.E.Driller Mr. Matthew Cecil, S.I.Helper Mr. James A. Campbell, A.A.S., A.C.P

mailto:[email protected]


Project Information & Proposed Construction Project information was supplied to us through a meeting, phone conversations and email correspondence. Our geotechnical evaluation is based upon the initial information although final design efforts may change as final design is completed. Thoroughbred requests that all final design documents are forwarded to us as soon as they are completed. Many times, our design intent is not achieved and impacts the construction and performance of the project.

Proposed Construction Notes

Item Response

Building The proposed construction will be a garage that will be used for storage of bookmobile and other items.

Foundation Type Shallow foundation type is planned.Structural Loading information

We were not provided structural loading at the time of this report. We request that once loading information is developed, this information be forwarded to Thoroughbred for a final review of our recommendations. Based upon similar structures, we anticipate the following:

Continuous Footings

Not Exceed 4,000 pounds per linear feet

Spread Footings

Not Exceed 50,000 pounds per column

Settlement Requirements

Not provided at the time of this report.

We do not anticipate total settlement to exceed 1 inch and differential settlement will not exceed 0.5 inches in 30 feet.

Retaining Walls Not anticipated. If retaining walls will be required, please contact Thoroughbred for additional information. Information for retaining walls were not requested in our scope of services.

Pavements Asphalt pavements are planned for the project.

Site Description

Item Response

Address 218 January StreetCity/County/State/Zip

Maysville, Kentucky

Acreage Less than one (1) AcreExisting Structures

An existing building exists onsite that is used for storage.

Condition of Existing Structures

We made general observation of the exterior of the facility during our site visit. The existing facility showed signs of major masonry cracking along the brick veneer. No information for the construction was provided.

Surrounding Observations

The lot is a tall grass undeveloped lot. Surrounding properties include Cattleman's Road House, Ken Towery’s, commercial strip mall, I-75 and Conestoga Parkway.

Site Elevation Range (FT-MSL) 516 to 523


Scope of Recommendations Recommendations for this evaluation apply to the following items:

Item Yes No NoteBuilding Foundation XSlab On Grade Interior X Exterior XSite XDams, Retention Areas, Etc XExterior Pavements Concrete X Asphalt XDumpster Pad XRetaining Wall X

Investigated Conditions The following conditions were encountered during our site visit and exploration:

Item ResponseSite Visit Date(s) 7/9/2018Exploration Date(s) 7/9/2018 and 7/10/2018Weather at Exploration

80’s and Partly Cloudy

Ground Cover Lot is grass covered on the south side of lot, building is located in the center of the lot, and north side of lot is covered with gravel and planter boxes.

Trees at Site A small tree and bushes exist along the front portion of the existing structure.

Surface Water We did not observe any surface water during our visit.Previous Development

The lot has been developed for the existing structure and the other improvements on the site (utilities, etc.)

Site Utilities Observed We contacted the Kentucky811 prior to visiting the site. We observed overhead lines that run east, south, and north perimeter of the site. Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water lines also run along the perimeter and throughout the site.

Contractors should contact the Utility Authorities prior to the start of Construction. A private utility locator should be contacted to locate underground lines.

Previous Site Grading Based upon historical photos imagery, the north portion of the site used to contain houses that have been demolished. The houses were demolished between 2009 and 2012.

Previous Construction Monitoring Reports

Thoroughbred is unaware if any documentation from the demolition of the houses exists. If they do exist, please forward to Thoroughbred for review.

Site Drainage Site appears to drain from west to east. Storm inlets exist to the east and northeast of the site.

Asphalt Pavements None


Basis of Investigation Our investigation was completed with the following activities:

Item Yes No NoteObservation, Knowledge & Experience XSite Visit XBorings with Sampling 3Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 11 Completed in General Accordance with ASTM

D1586Rock Coring X Completed in General Accordance with ASTM

D2113Borings w/out Sampling 3 Visual ObservationsTest Pits XGround Penetrating Radar (GPR) X Frequency at 250MHz

Laboratory Testing

Item Yes No NoteAtterberg Limit 3 ASTM D 4318Natural Moisture Content 12 ASTM D 2216Standard Proctor X ASTM D 698Expansive Index X ASTM D 4829California Bearing Ratio (CBR) X ASTM D 1883

Finer than No. 200 3 ASTM D 1140Unconfined Compressive X ASTM D 2166

Additional Research and InformationItem Yes No Note

Historic Review byAerial Photograph XConversations with Individuals having past knowledge of the site

X

Geological Review from KY Geological Survey

X

Soils Review from U.S. Depart. of Agriculture

X

Slope Stability Analysis X Not RequestedSettlement Analysis

General XSpecific X Not Requested

Liquefaction Analysis X Not RequestedExpansiveness Analysis XOther X Thoroughbred Engineering has previously

completed a geotechnical evaluation and a seismic study for the planned addition to the Mason County Library located adjacent to site.


Item Yes No NoteDisplacement Borings XWash Borings XAuger Borings XRotary Drilling XPrecussion Drilling XContinuous Sampling XGPR Equipment X US Radar Q5C PlusDrill Equipment X

Auto Hammer XSplit Barrel Sampler X2 1/4 Inch HS Auger X Hollow Flight Auger4 1/4 Inch HS Auger X Hollow Flight Auger4 1/4 Inch SF Auger X Solid Flight Auger

Other X

Equipment used During the Exploration

Questionable Soil & Site Conditions KBC 1803.5.3 Our efforts provided the following questionable soil and site conditions for the project. These may not be all of the issues that effect the project, construction or performance of the project. However, designers, contractors and owners should review each of these items carefully, fully understand them and make preparations as a result. Questionable soils and site conditions can be found on the next page.


Item ResponseHigh Moisture Content Soils Found On-Site

Soils encountered on-site show a tendency to hold water.

Soil samples were taken back to our laboratory where in-place moisture contents of the soils were determined. Soils showed a wide range in moisture contents. Most soils measured had a moisture content over 20 percent.

High moisture content soils can be detrimental to structures as they tend to have a lower shear strength, are difficult to grade, etc.

Expansive Soils Soil samples gathered in the field were tested in our laboratory. The Expansive Index was observed to be “Very Low”. However, there is still risk associated with expansion and we would classify the soils to be expansive in nature.

As site conditions, and/or seasonal weather, changes, very dry and very wet conditions can occur. Soils at the site, under these condition changes, put structures and pavements at the highest risk for damage. Damage can be cracks in foundations which reflect into masonry, steel and other building materials. Pavements are prone to heave and sidewalks can become misaligned and even buckle.

Previously Developed Site

Previously developed sites often pose a high risk during construction and long term simply because of the unknown. Additionally, the previously developed areas may have not been developed for the purpose of your project. Caution should be used as this project moves forward. Thoroughbred should be retained to provide KBC Special Inspections, material testing and construction observation to help reduce issues that often exist with sites similar to these and verify our design intent. Our services should not end after this report. Continuing our services is critical during construction and for long term performance of the project.

Demolition Activities

Demolition activities are anticipated with this project. As a result, experience as shown that great care, planning and communication needs to occur for the demolition activities at the site. Issues with Demolition activities include:

- The foundation should not be left in-place as point loading could occur on new structures causing failures.

- Debris from the demolition process is often pushed back into excavations and not properly placed as Engineered Fill.

- Utility lines should be disconnected prior to the demolition beginning. Utility excavations may not meet the future design intent of the project. Lines can fill with water and help to saturate sub grades leading to failures.

- Demolition materials are often left on site and end up being others problems.

- Demolition areas are often left exposed and rain water filters into the subgrade and results in unstable ground.

- Backfilling by Demolition Contractors often does not meet the future project requirements as they are not provided the future project specifications..

- No exploration occurred in the building pad area after demolition occurs. Subgrade in this area is unknown.

Previously Placed Fill

Previously placed fill was encountered onsite. Depths of fill material extend to depths greater than 10 feet deep. Construction debris should be anticipated in this material.

Previously placed fill and subgrade with debris often lead to differential bearing conditions. Overtime the ununiform subgrade can cause cracking in foundations, masonry, sheetrock (dry-wall), etc.

Utilities The site and surrounding area contain several utilities, above and below grade. Those utilities below grade pose a risk to development as their conditions are unknown. Development also need to plan for their location. The utilities may not have been backfilled in a way that meets this projects needs.


KBC Chapter 17 Special Inspections Soil Construction Recommendations Thoroughbred recommends the following KBC Special Inspection Chapter 17 Items for Soils Construction be completed for the project. Below are items from the code that should be completed as a part of the construction efforts:

KBC Special Inspections Item Yes No1. Verify materials below shallow foundations are adequate to achieve the design

bearing capacity.X

2. Verify excavations are extended to proper depth and have reached proper material.

X

3. Perform classification and testing of compacted fill material. X4. Verify use of proper materials, material densities and lift thicknesses during placement of compacted fill.

X

5. Prior to placement of compacted fill, observe subgrade and verify that site has been prepared properly.

X

Plan Limitations Our services have been completed in accordance with our authorized scope of work and in accordance with generally accepted practice in the fields of geotechnical and foundation engineering. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied.

Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the data revealed by this investigation. We are not responsible for any conclusions or opinions drawn from the data included herein, other than those specifically stated, nor are the recommendations presented in this report intended for direct use as construction specifications.

This report is intended for use with regard to the specific project discussed herein and any changes in loads, structures, or locations should be brought to our attention so that we may determine how they may affect our conclusions. An attempt has been made to provide for normal contingencies but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction. If this should occur, or if additional or contradictory data are revealed in the future, we should be notified so that modifications to this report can be made, if necessary. If we do not review the relevant construction documents and witness the relevant construction operations, then we cannot be responsible for any problem, which may arise, from the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of this report or failure to comply with our recommendations.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. The contractor is usually solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service, and under no circumstances should Thoroughbred Engineering be assumed responsible for construction site safety.

GPR is limited to the material which the microwave is traveling through and user interpretation of those signals. As a result, misinterpretations can occur. The interpretations included in our services are not guarantees of the actual conditions. We provide GPR information solely as an aid to our final recommendations.


Definitions Ground Penetrating Radar GPR is a non-destructive geophysical test method that uses radar pulses to image the subsurface. More specifically, the GPR sends electromagnetic radiation in the microwave band (UHF/VHR frequencies) of the radio spectrum and detects reflected signals from the subsurface materials. GPR can have application in a variety of geotechnical and construction materials such as rock, soil, concrete, asphalt and other materials. In the right conditions, GPR can detect subsurface objects, changes in material properties along with voids and cracks. Our scanning was completed with an antenna frequency noted in these documents.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) During the drilling process, we may complete Standard Penetration Testing at various intervals in our to measure the subsurface resistance of the underlaying soils. We also use SPT testing to obtain soil samples for visual observation, laboratory testing, etc. If SPT testing is included in our scope of services and outlined in these documents, the testing was completed in general accordance with ASTM D1586, Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Testing.

SPT testing includes driving a split barrel sampler to obtain a representative disturbed soil sample. The sampler is generally driven into the subsurface material in three (3) six (6) inch intervals. The last two intervals are added together in order to obtain a resistance value, or N-Value. The sampling is typically performed at 5-feet depth intervals, however smaller sampling depths may occur. The hammer contains a 140 pound mass that is dropped over an 30 inches distance. Our SPT testing is completed using an automatic hammer which typically applies a more consistent energy level. SPT N-Values are also used to determine the consistency of fine grain soil samples. The Consistency of Cohesive Soils Chart will be used to describe the samples encountered onsite:

USDA Defined Drainage Classes "Drainage class (natural)" refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods in conditions similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the water regime by human activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized-excessively drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained. These classes are defined in the “Soil Survey Manual" as follows.

Excessively drained. Water is removed very rapidly. Somewhat excessively drained. Water is removed from the soil rapidly. Well drained. Water is removed from the soil readily but not rapidly. Moderately well drained. Water is removed from the soil somewhat slowly during some periods of the year. Somewhat poorly drained. Water is removed slowly so that the soil is wet at a shallow depth for significant periods during the growing season. Poorly drained. Water is removed so slowly that the soil is wet at shallow depths periodically during the growing season or remains wet for long periods. Very poorly drained. Water is removed from the soil so slowly that free water remains at or very near the ground surface during much of the growing season.

SPT N-Value (Uncorrected)

Consistency Unconfined Compressive Strength (KSF)

<2 Very Soft <0.52-4 Soft 0.5-1.04-8 Medium (Firm) 1.0-2.0

8-16 Stiff 2.0-4.016-32 Very Stiff 4.0-8.0>32 Hard >8.0


Expansive Soils Expansive soils are defined by the 2013 Kentucky Building Code in section 1803.5.3 as soils meeting all four (4) of the following provisions: 1. Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 percent or greater, determined in accordance with ASTM D4318. 2. More than 10 percent of the soil particles passing a No. 200 sieve, determined in accordance with ASTM D422. 3. More than 10 percent of the soil particles are less than 5 micrometers in size, determined in accordance with ASTM

D422. 4. Expansion Index greater than 20, determined in accordance with ASTM D4829.

Rock Coring During the drilling process, we may obtain rock core samples from various areas in order to determine the underlying rock's consistency. If rock coring is included in our scope of services and outlined in these documents, the coring was completed in general accordance with ASTM D2113, Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site Investigations.

Rock core samples are also used to determine the Rock Quality Designation(RDQ) which correlates to the Rock Mass Quality. RQD is a rough measure of the degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass, measured as a percentage of the drill core in lengths of 10 cm(approximately 4 inches) or more. RQD values are used to describe the in situ rock mass quality by the following classification:

RQD (%) Rock Mass Quality

<25 Completely Weathered Rock

25-50 Weathered Rock

50-75 Moderately Weathered Rock

75-90 Hard Rock

90-100 Fresh Rock


Site Research Information Soils Data Review by U.S. Department of Agriculture The USDA provides soil information specific to the type of construction planned for your project. We visited the USDA Soil Survey Database for additional information about the site soils. It should be noted, it is likely the soils noted below are present but may not be in the original deposited orientation.

USDA Database project types observed:

Item Yes No NoteArea of Interest (AOI) 0.4 Acres, the approx. size of entire lot

Soil Unit Map XCorrosion of Concrete XCorrosion of Steel XSmall Commercial Buildings XDwellings with Basements XLocal Roads and Streets XOther X

USDA Soil Unit Map & Data Our research on the USDA database was for the Area of Interest (AOI) shown below. Soil types at the site are noted as follows by the USDA:

Map Unit Symbol

Unit Name Slope % Hydrolic Soils

Group

Runoff Class

Natural Drainage Class

WhA Wheeling Silt Loams 0 to 4 B Low Well Drained


Corrosion of Concrete Corrosion of Steel

Map Unit Symbol Corrosion of Concrete Rating

Corrosion of Steel Rating

WhA Moderate High

"Risk of corrosion” with pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.

The risk of corrosion is expressed as "low," "moderate," or “high."


Small Commercial Buildings

Map Unit Symbol Small Commerical Rating

Rating Reasons

WhA Not Limited

Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.


The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.


Historic Photography We reviewed several available aerial photographs, dating back as far as March, 1995. The north portion of the site appears to have contained houses that were demolished between 2009 and 2012. The project site does not appear to have changed since the 2016 aerial but it should be noted that the building on the lot that borders the site along East Fourth Street has been demolished.

March, 1995 August, 2009

March, 2012 April, 2016


Existing Condition Photography Site photographic are shown below. Obvious masonry cracking can be observed in the existing structure.

Storm Sewer Overhead Utility Existing Structure

Masonry CrackingMasonry Cracking Overhead Utility


Masonry Cracking Masonry Cracking Masonry Cracking


Soil Summary Summary Summary of Subsurface Material Information

Item ResponseGravel Thickness (In) 0 to 2Asphalt Pavement Thickness (In) 0 to 0Concrete Pavement Thickness (In) 0 to 0Possible Fill Thickness (FT) 15.0 to 16.5*Rock Depth across Borings/Observation (FT) Greater than 80 ft**Range of Consistency in Material from SPT (Clay) Medium to Very StiffWas Expansive Materials found in Subgrade? Yes- Very LowWas previously placed fill encountered at the site? Yes

*Thickness of fill layer may extend deeper as exploration was limited to a depth of 16.5 feet. Thoroughbred Engineering completed exploration drilling for the addition to the Mason County Library in which fill depths ranged from ten (10) to twenty (20) feet.

** Thoroughbred Engineering completed exploration drilling for the addition to the Mason County Library in which auger refusal was encountered at 78.5 feet.

General Description of Soil Strata Encountered The site appears to have been previously developed many years ago. Buildings at the site have been constructed and demolished over the years. Backfill material is unknown. Existing structures appear to have cracking although the cause is unknown as a forensic study of the existing structure was beyond the limits of our scope of services. The fill at the site may extend greater than 15 feet as we have been told an old masonry storm sewer exists 20-25 feet below grade.

In general, we would describe the soil strata at the site to contain about two (2) inches of gravel. A layer of previously placed fill was encountered below the gravel. Borings completed were terminated within the possible fill layer. Thoroughbred Engineering previous explorations on-site showed that below the fill layer is a layer of lean clay (CL). In the lean clay, we found coal fragments, organics, concrete, and other debris material. Moisture contents ranged from moist to wet. Material was sampled to be medium to very stiff.

Soil Classification During the course of our work, we selected representative soil samples for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing reports are included in this plan set. We classified the samples per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and were found to be as follows.

Classification Yes No Note

Low Plasticity Clay (CL) X

High Plasticity Clay (CH) X

Silty Sand (SM) X

Inorganic Silts (ML) X

Clayey Sand (SC) X

Clayey Sand - Sandy Silt (SC-SM)

X

Clayey Gravel (GC) X


Laboratory Testing Results

Laboratory Test RangesTest Low High Note

Plasticity Index (%) 14 17Natural Moisture Content (%) 19.7 31.0% Finer than No. 200 67.9 92.1




Mason County Library Project Number: 297

Maysville, Mason County, Kentucky Date 5/5/16

Lab ID Location ID Depth (FT) Sample Type Pre-Test Moisture

Contentt (%)

Post-Test Moisture Content

(%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Percent of Optimum

Compaction (%)

Expansion Index (EI50)

Protential Expansion

1 Bulk 1.0-2.0 Bulk 13.4% 26.5% 93.1 90.6% 20 Very Low

Project Name:

Project Location:

Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils ASTM D4829-03

0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 120.0 275.0 875.0 1440.0

Dia

l R

ea

din

gs

(in

)

Time (min)

Soil Expansion Displacement


Rock Strata Review of Kentucky Geological Survey Information We visited the Kentucky Geological Survey's (KGS) mapping information database for information about rock strata. The KGS was established in 1838 and has investigated mineral, energy and water resources, and geologic hazards in Kentucky for 170 years. As the official geologic research organization for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, KGS is focused on research in earth resources and processes, public service, and the dissemination of our data, knowledge, and experience to stakeholders in industry, government, educational institutions, and the general public. The KGS is to increase knowledge and understanding of the mineral, energy, and water resources, geologic hazards, and geology of Kentucky for the benefit of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the nation.

Our review of the KGS information is noted below:

Item FormationOlder Ohio River Aluvium Kope Formation

County MasonSymbol Qfo Ok

24K Quadrangle Map Maysville WestPrimary Lithology Mixed Sediments Shale and Limestone

Karst Rank Non-KarstAge Quanternary Upper Ordovician

Silt, sand, and clay. Beneath flood plain and low terraces, grades from clayey silt downward to sandy silt and fine to medium sand. Silt and sand, light-yellowish-brown to gray, noncalcareous, micaceous, obscurely to well bedded. Contains lenses of vegetable matter, gray silty clay, gravel, and detrital coal. Low ridges are sandy; poorly drained swales are clayey. Rests on surface cut on glacial outwash. Thickness generally increases from about 20 to 30 feet beneath higher terrace to 30 to 40 feet beneath modern flood plain. Backwater alluvium consists of obscurely bedded yellowish-brown carbonaceous silt and clay that intertongue with locally derived gravelly alluvium. Soils on modern alluvium show little color, texture, or ped development, and belong to the Huntington soil catena (Taylor and others, 1938, p. 36). In areas mapped as modern alluvium, flood couplets of sand and humic mud common. Soils on older alluvium show marked color and texture development, and belong to the Wheeling soil catena (Taylor and others, 1938, p. 37). Radioactive age determination of charcoal from 15 feet below lower terrace of older alluvium at east end of Charleston bottom yielded age of 9,010 plus or minus 300 years B.P. Average 2-year flood of Ohio River reaches altitude of about 502 feet at Maysville which is thus considered the local upper limit of modern flood plain, although less frequent floods may cover lower terraces and deposit or erode a thin layer of mud. Highest recorded flood (1937) reached about 527 feet at Maysville.

Shale and limestone, interbedded: Shale (about 70 percent of unit), medium-gray, weathers light gray to dusky yellow; fissile, calcareous, fossiliferous in part. Limestone, medium-gray, thin- to medium-bedded. Coarse-grained fossiliferous limestone dominant (classes 1 and 2 of Weiss and Norman, 1960); fine-grained, silty, sparsely fossiliferous limestone (class 6 of Weiss and Norman, 1960) subordinate. Unit consists of sets of beds 3 to 10 feet thick, chiefly of shale, alternating with sets of beds 5 to 10 feet thick of closely interbedded shale and limestone in about equal abundance. Some beds very fossiliferous. Poorly exposed; forms moderate slopes commonly strewn with limestone float. Upper contact sharp; lower contact gradational.

Hope Formation

Older Ohio River Alluvium


Karst occurrences, Gas and Oil Wells, Mining Activities, and Water Wells by KGS

The KGS notes mapped sinkholes and mining activities in the area. We reviewed the mapping by KGS and noted the below information.

Item Yes No Closest Approx. Distance to SiteKarst Activity in Area X None observed within 1 Mile of the site.Obvious Karst Activity on Site X None observedGas and Oil Wells X None observed within 1 Mile of the site.Mining Activities X None observed within 1 Mile of the site.Water Wells X 40 water wells observed within 1 Mile of the site.

KGS: 24K Quadrangle Map

Site

Closest Water Well to Site


Closed Contour Area Observation Background Mr. Jeff Pearson of Pearson & Peters Architects indicated to us there is a closed contour area on the site survey. There was a concern that the closed contour area maybe due to karst activity of soil mass loss. Jeff noted there is a stone storm sewer that runs in the middle of the lot about 20 feet deep. Water may be draining in the area to the storm sewer causing the soils around the area to be carried away. On-site exploration was recommended to determine if soil movement was observed in the subsurface to the form of drilling and Ground Penetrating Radar.

Exploration & Site Research During on-site exploration, six borings were conducted in the area of the closed contour. Visual observations of the auger cuttings were made. Soil was observed to determine if any organics or signs of soil piping were encountered. Based upon observed cutting, no obvious signs of soil was piping observed.

In addition to onsite drilling, Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR) scanning was conducted around the closed depression area. Scans showed no obvious signs of voids extending from the closed contour area.

Observation of the closed contour area showed the hole contained construction debris (brick, concrete, gravel, etc.). We reviewed historical research that seem to indicate the adjoining property contained a building that has been demolished in the last two years.

Unfortunately, we could not explore the hole as it was beyond the property limits. However, based upon onsite exploration, GPR scanning, and historical site information, the closed contour area appears to be a result of the demolition of the adjoining property structure.


Retaining Wall Analysis In addition to our geotechnical evaluation, we were asked to observe the existing concrete/masonry walls at the site and make comments from any obvious issues we saw. As perviously noted, USDA soil information indicates a moderate rating associated with corrosion of soils to concrete and a high rating associated with corrosion to steel. You should know soil corrosion testing was beyond the limits of our scope of services.

It appears to us the concrete and masonry products at the site appear to be slightly weathered, stained and dirty. There is algae growing on some of the concrete/masonry materials we observed. Ground water may be seeping from earthen materials behind the wall. Ground water appears to be causing the top joints of the masonry courses to have a higher staining than towards the bottom of the block.

The weathering and staining does not appear to be structural in nature although periodic observation should occur by maintenance staff. If flaking, cracking, etc is observe, you should contact us for further observation and recommendations. If the staining becomes unsightly, periodic cleaning may reduce the discoloration and algae growth. We would suggest contacting a concrete cleaning supplier for products that will help remove staining and be environmentally friendly.

Algae

Staining at Top of Masonry Course


Retaining Wall Analysis In addition to our geotechnical evaluation, we were asked to observe the existing concrete/masonry walls at the site and make comments from any obvious issues we saw. As perviously noted, USDA soil information indicates a moderate rating associated with corrosion of soils to concrete and a high rating associated with corrosion to steel. You should know soil corrosion testing was beyond the limits of our scope of services.

It appears to us the concrete and masonry products at the site appear to be slightly weathered, stained and dirty. There is algae growing on some of the concrete/masonry materials we observed. Ground water may be seeping from earthen materials behind the wall. Ground water appears to be causing the top joints of the masonry courses to have a higher staining than towards the bottom of the block.

The weathering and staining does not appear to be structural in nature although periodic observation should occur by maintenance staff. If flaking, cracking, etc is observe, you should contact us for further observation and recommendations. If the staining becomes unsightly, periodic cleaning may reduce the discoloration and algae growth. We would suggest contacting a concrete cleaning supplier for products that will help remove staining and be environmentally friendly.

Algae

Staining at Top of Masonry Course


Water Ground Water - KBC 1803.5.4 & 1805 Thoroughbred made efforts to observe the ground water table during exploration and then about 24 hours later (the next day). Water levels were observed during the drilling process and the next day, approximately 24 hours after drilling was complete. Information on ground water encountered is provided below.

Finish Floor Elevation has not been provided to us at the time of this report.

Boring/Test Pit

Location

Boring Elevation (FT-MSL)

Exploration Depth(FT)

Water Elevation at Time of

Exploration

24 Hour Water Reading Elevation

Within five (5) Feet of Lowest

Floor Elevation?Yes No Yes No

B-1 519.2 16.5 X X NoB-2 517.0 15.0 X X NoB-3 519.6 16.5 X X NoB-4 520.0 20.0 X X NoB-5 522.2 23.0 X X NoB-6 517.2 3.0* X X No

* Boring B-6 encountered shallow refusal due to anticipated construction debris located in the observed fill layer. Notes: 1. Contractors should anticipate ground water during construction and excavations. 2. Site drainage may be an issue and thus, design and construct efforts should take this into account. 3. Perched water may enter excavations or exist in the subgrade. Seepage is anticipated during construction activities. 4. If water from sidewall seepage or precipitation efforts occurs, contractors may need to install a sump hole in

excavation. 5. Contractors should be prepared to de-water during construction.

Foundation Drain (KBC 1805.4.2) A foundation drain should be installed as noted in our Typical Foundation Detail.

A drain shall be placed around the perimeter of a foundation that consists of gravel or crushed stone containing not more than 10-percent material that passes through a No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve. The drain shall extend a minimum of 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the outside edge of the footing. The thickness shall be such that the bottom of the drain is not higher than the bottom of the base under the floor, and that the top of the drain is not less than 6 inches (152 mm) above the top of the footing. The top of the drain shall be covered with an approved filter membrane material. Where a drain tile or perforated pipe is used, the invert of the pipe or tile shall not be higher than the floor elevation. The top of joints or the top of perforations shall be protected with an approved filter membrane material. The pipe or tile shall be placed on not less than 2 inches (51 mm) of gravel or crushed stone complying with Section 1805.4.1, and shall be covered with not less than 6 inches (152 mm) of the same material.

Foundation drain should be discharged by gravity or mechanical means into an approved drainage system.

Subsoil Drainage System (Floor Base Course) Hydrostatic Pressure does not appear to exist. We recommend the following: The concrete slab on-grade shall be placed over a floor base course consisting of gravel or crushed stone containing not more than 10 percent of material that passes through a No. 4 sieve. Minimum thickness of the base course is shown in the provided detail.


Dampproofing for Walls and Floors We recommend that Dampproofing be completed as part of the design and construction for walls and floors.

Floors Dampproofing materials for floors shall be installed between the base course stone and concrete. Hydrostatic pressure does not appear to exist, however, we would suggest dampproofing be included in the design and construction in the form of a polyethylene material. The thickness of the liner should be as noted in the foundation detain drawing in this plan set. The joints should be lapped not less than 6 inches and installed per manufactures’ recommendations. Please noted that Structural or Architectural requirements may be greater.

Walls Prior to application of dampproofing materials on concrete walls, holes and recesses resulting from the removal of form ties shall be sealed with a bituminous material or other approved methods or materials. Unit masonry walls shall be parged on the exterior surface below ground level with not less than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) of Portland cement mortar. The parging shall be coved at the footing.

Dampproofing materials for walls shall be installed on the exterior surface of the wall, and shall extend from the top of the footing to above ground level. Dampproofing shall consist of a bituminous material, 3 pounds per square yard of acrylic modified cement, 1/8 inch coat of surface-bonding mortar complying with ASTM C 887, or any of the materials permitted for waterproofing.

Surface Water and site drainage pose a high risk associated with the overall performance of the project. As a result, we recommend the following:

1. Construct of the foundation and slab on-grade as per the recommendations provided in this plan and the project documents. The slab on-grade should not be structurally connected to the foundation.

2. Design and construct the surrounding grade to not direct surface water flow to the foundation and slab on-grade construction. Ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall.

3. Fill soils should contain a moisture content of as noted in the Fill Section of this plan set.

4. Concrete sidewalks, pavements and other materials in contact with the structure should have those contact joints sealed so that water is not allowed to seep into the foundation zone.

5. Gutters should be closed conduct and extend to an approved storm drainage area or drain.

Surface Water Surface Water was not observed during onsite exploration. In any event, we do not recommend sheet flowing across the site or paved areas.


Grading and Fill in Flood Hazard Areas Our review of the FEMA.GOV mapping indicates the site is in an area of:

Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee

Site

Item Result

Panel ID 21029C0177FEffective Date 4/16/2013Date Observed 7/16/2018

http://FEMA.GOV

http://FEMA.GOV


Excavation, Grading and Fill KBC 1803.5.7 through 10 & 1804

Overview It appears to us the proposed construction will include excavations, grading and fill construction. General recommendations are provided in this report. If construction activities encounter conditions different than those during our exploration, please contact us immediately.

Once design has been completed, please provide construction plans and specifications to us for review. It is possible that recommendations may change as a result.

Until then, we anticipate the following:

1. Soils at the site are expansive. Fill soils should be placed with moisture levels noted in this report.

2. Gutters should be closed conduit after the point of capture. Water from gutters should extend to an approved drainage system. Water should not be allowed to drain onto the ground around the foundation or pavements.

3. Sheet flowing of surface water in pavements should not be allowed.

4. We recommend a meeting between the owner and contractor prior to the start of construction and you once structural and civil plans have been generated. You and your contractor should review our complete evaluation and let us know if you have any questions.

5. Demolition activities are anticipated as part of the planned construction. Demolition should follow the recommendations outline on sheet G-5 of this plan set.

6. It is critical that once stripping efforts have been made across the site, Thoroughbred Engineering be contacted to observe the exposed subgrade. Preparations requirements noted in this report and the project documents should be strictly followed.

Excavation Excavations will be completed as a part of the project requirements based on the known project details. With that said, contractors should make all excavation in strict accordance with the requirements made by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The site needs to be graded to reduce water saturation into the sub grade and surrounding areas.

Standing water should not be allowed in foundation excavations with concrete previously poured. Standing water will only degrade the subgrade and cause soils to change volume.

Excavation Near Foundations We observed the site and reviewed the anticipate project notes to help determine if any excavations would be made at the site to remove lateral support for any foundation.

It does not appears excavations will remove lateral support for foundations.

Although we do not anticipate excavations near adjoining foundations, excavations for the new foundation system shall not remove lateral support from any foundation without first underpinning or protecting the foundation against settlement or lateral translation. If this does occur, the contractor should contact Thoroughbred Engineering prior to the start of construction.


Excavation, Grading and Fill KBC 1803.5.7 through 10 & 1804

Overview It appears to us the proposed construction will include excavations, grading and fill construction. General recommendations are provided in this report. If construction activities encounter conditions different than those during our exploration, please contact us immediately.

Once design has been completed, please provide construction plans and specifications to us for review. It is possible that recommendations may change as a result.

Until then, we anticipate the following:

1. Soils at the site are expansive. Fill soils should be placed with moisture levels noted in this report.

2. Gutters should be closed conduit after the point of capture. Water from gutters should extend to an approved drainage system. Water should not be allowed to drain onto the ground around the foundation or pavements.

3. Sheet flowing of surface water in pavements should not be allowed.

4. We recommend a meeting between the owner and contractor prior to the start of construction and you once structural and civil plans have been generated. You and your contractor should review our complete evaluation and let us know if you have any questions.

5. Demolition activities are anticipated as part of the planned construction. Demolition should follow the recommendations outline on sheet G-5 of this plan set.

6. It is critical that once stripping efforts have been made across the site, Thoroughbred Engineering be contacted to observe the exposed subgrade. Preparations requirements noted in this report and the project documents should be strictly followed.

Excavation Excavations will be completed as a part of the project requirements based on the known project details. With that said, contractors should make all excavation in strict accordance with the requirements made by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The site needs to be graded to reduce water saturation into the sub grade and surrounding areas.

Standing water should not be allowed in foundation excavations with concrete previously poured. Standing water will only degrade the subgrade and cause soils to change volume.

Excavation Near Foundations We observed the site and reviewed the anticipate project notes to help determine if any excavations would be made at the site to remove lateral support for any foundation.

It does not appears excavations will remove lateral support for foundations.

Although we do not anticipate excavations near adjoining foundations, excavations for the new foundation system shall not remove lateral support from any foundation without first underpinning or protecting the foundation against settlement or lateral translation. If this does occur, the contractor should contact Thoroughbred Engineering prior to the start of construction.


Grading The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope) for a minimum distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet (3048 mm) of horizontal distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. See Fill for additional recommendations.

Fill Based on the current grade of the site, placement of compacted fill material is not anticipated for this project. If fill or cuts greater than 12 inches occur recommendations below for backfill and compacted fill recommendations.

Placement of Backfill The excavation outside the foundation shall be backfilled with soil that is free of organic material, construction debris, cobbles and boulders, or with a controlled low-strength material (CLSM). The backfill shall be placed in lifts and compacted in a manner that does not damage the foundation or the waterproofing or dampproofing material. If CLSM is used as backfill, see recommendations Section “Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM)”.

In areas for porches, stoops or other future structural areas, backfilled adjacent to the proposed building, where soil removal for foundation and foundation walls will occur should be backfilled with a CLSM material in order to reduce the likelihood of settlement and future movement.


Prior to the placement of fill material, base stone, etc. for structures, the areas should be prepared in accordance with the project documents and items below:

Specifications for the preparation of the site prior to placement of compacted fill material:

1. When ready to commence construction, the site should be cleared/grubbed removing all brush, trees, and debris within the construction limits. These materials should be wasted off-site.

2. All trees, topsoil, and organic materials should be removed (stripped) from the construction area and all structural fill areas. These materials should be wasted from the site. Topsoil and organic materials should be stockpiled for use as topsoil in landscaping areas.

3. Once the topsoil and organic material has been stripped, the areas that will obtain fill material shall be scarified to a depth of 12 inches and compaction applied to obtain a density of 98 percent of the material’s relative density.

4. Areas ready to receive new fill should be proofrolled with a loaded tai-axle truck weighing at least 60,000 pounds. Multiple passes should be made.

5. Perform the proofrolling after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading the subgrade.

6. Areas which pump, rut, or wave during proofrolling may require undercutting, depending on the location of the area and the use of the area. You should anticipate undercutting to some level in wet areas or previously filled areas and trenches.

Preparation of Subgrade


Compacted Fill Material

See Typical Soil Fill Construction Detail for recommendations.


Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM) Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) is a mixture of cement, sand and water in a flowable form that is often used as backfill material specifically to fill undercut excavations, backfill around pipes or in areas where compaction equipment simply can not maneuver.

Based upon our review of the project, CLSM may be required as backfill. Below are recommended specifications for CLSM material:

CLSM shall meet the requirements of the project, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) latest standards and as noted below:

A self-leveling and self- compacting, cementitious material with an unconfined compressive strength of an excavatable type. This includes a minimum strength of 50 psi within 24 hours. The one-year strength shall not exceed 150 psi.

Sources and proportions of CLSM ingredients:

Prior to the start of CLSM placement, the CONTRACTOR shall submit a description of the proposed CLSM mixture design. Based on the application, the Thoroughbred Engineer may require the CONTRACTOR to submit appropriate laboratory or field test data documenting compliance to specified material and or performance properties.

CLSM shall be manufactured with materials conforming to the standards listed below. The Thoroughbred Engineer shall approve the use of all non-conforming materials. Approval shall be based on documentation that controlled low strength material mixtures manufactured with the non-conforming materials meet the specified plastic and hardened properties and are suited for the intended application.

Hydraulic Cement (AASHTO M 85 or M 240) Fly Ash (AASHTO M 295) Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (AASHTO M 302) Fine Aggregate (AASHTO M 6) Coarse Aggregate (AASHTO M 80) Lightweight Aggregate (AASHTO M 195) Water (AASHTO M 157) Chemical Admixtures (AASHTO M 194) Air Entrainment Admixtures (Approved by a Thoroughbred Engineer). Foaming Admixture (ASTM C 869)

The flowable material shall have a minimum flow of 8 inches tested in accordance with ASTM D6103. Unit weight of the material shall not exceed 145 pounds per cubic foot. CLSM shall be proportioned by the ready mixed concrete supplier on the basis of field experience and/or laboratory trial mixtures to produce a cohesive and non-segregating mixture meeting the specified properties. The addition of water and admixtures on the job-site is permitted. The amount of water and admixture added shall be recorded. The CLSM mixture shall be mixed for a minimum of 30 revolutions after the addition of the water or admixture. Material shall not be placed on frozen ground. The ambient temperature shall be 35 deg F and rising at the time of placement. CLSM may be placed in confined spaces


Foundations KBC 1803.5.7,10, 1808 & 1809

Continuous Footing Detail can be found on the next page.


Design for Capacity and Settlement

Item ResultRecommend Foundation Type Shallow, Spread and ContinuousAllowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 PSFBearing Type Soil BearingMinimum Foundation Depth 36 inchesMinimum Width of Footing 30 inchesSettlement Tolerances* Overall 1.0 inches Differential 0.5 inches in 30 feet

*A detailed settlement analysis was not included in our scope of services. The listed tolerances are based upon generalized data, material encountered in our exploration efforts and past experience.

Additional Notes:

1. Bearing surface of foundation should be free of all loose material removed prior to the placement of concrete.

2. Standing water should not be present in the foundation excavation at the time of placement.

3. Foundation width should be measured from the bottom of the excavation and meet the minimum plan width and depth. Foundation width and depth are critical.

4. No construction debris should be left in place in the foundation excavation within 24 inches of the planned bottom of the foundation.

Depth, Width, Edge Distance and Frost Protection of Footings Based upon our understanding of the project and the site conditions encountered during our evaluation, we recommend the following footing characteristics associated with minimum depths, widths and frost protection:

Item Distance (In)Minimum Depth 36Minimum Width 30Minimum Edge Distance for Plain Concrete Footings 8

Section 1809.5 of the Kentucky Building Code notes the minimum requirements for frost protection:

County Frost Depth, d (In)

County Frost Depth, d (In)

Bell 27 Knott 27Boone 30 Leslie 30Campbell 30 Magoffin 30Clay 27 Martin 33Floyd 33 Owsley 27Johnson 30 Perry 30Kenton 30 All other KY Counties 24


Stepped Footings We do not anticipate the need for stepped footings.

If stepped footing are required, the top surface of the footing shall be level. The bottom surface of the footing shall be permitted to have a slope not exceeding one unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10 percent slope). Footings shall be stepped where it is necessary to change the elevation of the top surface of the footing or where the surface of the ground slope more than one unit vertical in 10 units horizontal. Structural plans may limit the use of stepped footings.

Additional Foundation Recommendations Additional recommendations for the proposed foundation was not included in this plan set. If design efforts change, please contact us for review and information for the following items: Vibratory Loads, Shifting/Moving Soils, Masonry Unit Footings, Pier & Curtain Wall Foundations, Steel Grillage Footings, or Timber Footings.

Seismic Design Categories The Building Code requires evaluation of the potential geologic and seismic hazards for the project. We conducted the following items for our evaluation.

Item Yes No NotesSlope Instability X Not included is ScopeLiquefaction X Not included is ScopeTotal & Differential Settlement X GeneralSurface Displacement X Not included is Scope

The 2013 edition of the Kentucky Building Code was used to determine the seismic site classification. The KBC requires that soil and conditions be evaluated to a depth of 100 feet below the foundation bearing elevation.

Site Classification and Spectral Response information was determined from SASW Testing completed on November 27,2017.

Site Classification= D

Thoroughbred Engineering completed Spectral Analysis of Surface Wave (SASW) Testing for the addition to the existing library facility. Testing indicated that the shear wave velocities through the subsurface would classify the site as a seismic site class “D”.

Ss = 0.156g S1 = 0.086g

Alternate Setback and Clearance We do not anticipate slopes being greater than 1 unit vertical to 3 units horizontal (1V:3H). If grading efforts do include steeper slopes, please contact us for further information. The diagram below provides minimum recommendations for structures adjacent to slopes.


Design for Expansive Clays KBC 1808.6 Expansive soils are defined by the 2013 Kentucky Building Code as soils meeting all four (4) provisions as indicated on sheet G-1. Expansive clays were found during our exploration. As a result, we recommend the following items be included as a part of the design and construction.

1. Gutters should be closed conduct after the point of capture.

a. Gutters should extend underground to an approved drainage system.

2. Pavement joint sealant should be utilized to reduce ground water seepage and sub grade degradation. Pavement joint sealant should meet KyTC Standards for Concrete and Asphalt Construction.

3. Civil design for storm drainage should not allow sheet flow.

4. Fill placement should meeting moisture connect and compaction levels noted in this evaluation.

5. Concrete slab and sidewalk construction should have crack controls installed to the minimum ACI standards.

Concrete or Grout Concrete Strength and Mix Proportioning Due to the corrosive properties of the site soils noted by USDA, we recommend the concrete placed against soils shall have the following characteristics:

Item NotesMinimum Compressive Strength 4,000 PSI at 28 DaysWater to Cement Ratio 0.48 or LessSlump Four (4) to Seven (7) Inches

Note: This requirement does not include CLSM or flowable fill mixes.


Concrete Cover Reinforcing steel shall have cover per the latest addition of the American Concrete Institute's Standard, ACI 318 Building Code for Structural Concrete, see ACI 318 Section 7.7 below.

Item Min. Concrete Cover (In)Concrete cast against and permanently exposed to earth 3Concrete exposed to earth or weather No. 6 thru No. 18 bars 2 No. 5 bars, W31 or D31 Wire and Smaller 1 1/2Concrete not exposed to weather or in contact with ground Slab, Walls, Joists No. 14 and No. 18 Bars 1 1/2 No. 11 and Smaller 3/4 Beams, Columns Primary reinforcement, ties, stirrups, spirals 1 1/2 Shells, folded plate members No. 6 Bar and Larger 3/4 No. 5 bar, W31 or D31 Wire and Smaller 1/2

Placement of Concrete Concrete placement shall be deposited per the latest addition of the American Concrete Institute's Standard, ACI 318 Building Code for Structural Concrete.

Protection of Concrete Concrete shall be protected from freezing during depositing and for a period of not less than five days thereafter. The concrete protection should result in the placement and concrete to be maintained per the ACI recommendations noted in table 5.1. Additionally, water shall not be allowed to flow through the deposited concrete.

Section Size, Minimum Dimensions (In)

Line Air Temperature (F) <12 12 to 361 - 55 50

Min Concrete Temperature, as Placed and Maintained

2 Above 30 60 553 0 to 30 65 604 Below 0 70 65


Concrete Slab On-Grade Recommendations Concrete slab on-grade appears to be a part of the proposed construction. As a result, we provide the following recommendations in conjunction to the project documents:

1. Concrete Slab on-grade should have a minimum thickness as shown in Typical Continuous Perimeter Footing Detail noted in this Plan Set.

2. The base stone should be placed below the slab and meet the requirements previously noted in this report. Recommended thickness of stone is shown in footing detail.

3. The concrete slab on-grade should be structurally independent from the foundation. The slab should be "free floating”.

4. A Polyethylene Liner should be placed between the base stone and slab. See detail for thickness requirements.

Pavements Base Stone and Quality Control 1. Prior to the placement of base stone,

a. Areas should be prepared as noted in this report. b. A Thoroughbred Engineer or Special Inspector should observe the subgrade and proofroll prior to base stone

placement. A Thoroughbred Engineer should be contacted if areas appear unstable. Soft areas should be anticipated, additional stabilization maybe required.

2. The Densely Graded Aggregates (DGA) should be placed and compacted in accordance with Kentucky Department of Highways Standard Specifications, latest edition. DGA Shall

a. Be thoroughly mixed at placement. b. Be placed in a maximum of four (4) inch lifts and compacted. c. Be compacted to 84% of its solid volume density. d. Should have a moisture content at the time of placement of three (3) to seven (7) percent.

3. Density testing should be completed on each lift of the DGA and at a rate of one (1) test per every 50 linear feet of pavement.

Flexural Asphalt Pavements Exterior pavements are planned to be asphalt material. Prior to placement of base stone, the area shall be prepared in accordance with this plan set and the project documents.

Light Duty and Medium Duty pavements are recommended for the site. We defined Light Duty Pavement as parking stalls and Medium Duty Pavements as drive paths.


1-1/2” Asphalt Surface

8” Base Stone

5” Asphalt Binder

1-1/2” Asphalt Surface3-1/2” Asphalt Binder

8” Base Stone

1-1/2” Asphalt Surface3-1/2” Asphalt Binder

8” Base Stone

TX-5 Geogrid


Recommendations for asphalt pavements include:

1. Proofroll the pavement area prior to the earthwork operations beginning. Proofrolling shall also be completed prior to the placement of the Dense Graded Aggregate base.

2. Proofrolling shall be completed with a tri-axle dump truck exceeding 60,000 pounds in weight. 3. Proofrolling should be observed by a Thoroughbred Engineer. Removal of soft areas should be anticipated. 4. The dense graded aggregate (DGA) should be placed and compacted in accordance with Kentucky Department of

Highways Standard Specifications, latest edition. 5. The asphalt should be mixed, placed, and compacted in accordance with Kentucky Department of Highways Standard

Specifications, latest edition. 6. It is common practice to place the base stone and binder course prior to completion of construction without placing

the surface course. It should be noted that repeated passes of heavily loaded construction traffic on the binder course will likely decrease the service life of your pavement.

7. If Geogrids are used, install Geogrid so that the roll length runs parallel to the roads direction. Overlap Geogrid at minimum of one (1) foot, in both directions. Use plastic ties at overlaps. Place traverse tie four (4) to five (5) feet apart and longitudinal ties at ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet apart.

Demolition Activities Recommendations for Demolition Activities Demolition actives are anticipated with this project. As a result, experience as shown that great care, planning and communication needs to occur for the demolition activities at the site.

1. Have a Pre-Demolition Meeting with the General and Demolition Contractor and Design Professionals. Provide them with a copy of this report so they understand the requirements of the proposed construction.

2. All demolition activities should meet the future requirements of the proposed construction specifically, those outlined in this plan set but not limited to the complete project documents.

3. Existing footings should not be left in place. All grade walls should be excavated from the demolition area. 4. Excavations that occur as a result of the demolition process should be backfilled as per the construction drawings and

this plan set. 5. The site should be graded to drain. Ponding water should not occur during or after the demolition contractors have

left the site. 6. The top grade of the Demolition areas should be sealed and water not allowed to drain into the subgrade or open

voids. 7. All debris should be removed and wasted off site. 8. Utility lines should be disconnected and removed from proposed structural areas. In the event they can not be

removed, pipes should be fully grouted. 9. Retain Thoroughbred Engineering to be on-site during demolition activities to document the process and verify

demolition efforts meet the future needs of the project.


Attachments: Boring & GPR Location Plan, Boring Profiles and GPR Scans


GPR ScansScan 1

Possible Trench/Pipe

Scan 2

Boring B-2 Boring B-1

Possible Utility

Possible Utility

Documents

Thoroughbred Engineering · Thoroughbred recommends the mat foundation bear on crushed stone having a thickness of six (6) inches. The stone should meet the requirements of a KyTC