CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project Spring 2008 ODOT Henry ... · PDF fileProject Manager 2 Ohio...
Transcript of CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project Spring 2008 ODOT Henry ... · PDF fileProject Manager 2 Ohio...
The University of Toledo College of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project
Spring 2008
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
ii
Disclaimer
This report is student work. The contents of this report reflect the views of the students who
are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do
not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Toledo or the Ohio Department of
Transportation. The recommendations, drawings and specifications in this report should not
be used without consulting a professional engineer.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
iii
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... iv
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................................3
Constraints .......................................................................................................................................6
Design ..............................................................................................................................................7
Site Layout................................................................................................................................7
Building ..................................................................................................................................15
Water Management ................................................................................................................21
Economics ......................................................................................................................................26
People Contacted ...........................................................................................................................27
Site Visits ........................................................................................................................................28
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. App-1
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
iv
Acknowledgements
The design team would like to acknowledge the professionals who provided assistance in
this project. Their efforts made much of the design possible, and the project could not have been
completed without them. The design team is greatly appreciates the guidance and support that
has been given.
Ms. Bernadette Barth, P.E. – ODOT
Craig Schneiderbauer – ODOT
Dr. Cyndee Gruden, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering
Dr. Douglas Nims, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering
Dr. Brian Randolph, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering
Dr. Andrew Heydinger, P.E. – The University of Toledo College of Engineering
Ryan Crawford – InterClean Equipment Inc.
Davis Construction Building Movers
Harmon Building Movers
Jill Leonello – Olympia Steel Buildings
Tony Kern – Westfield Electric
Jeff Nelson – Innovative Lighting Systems
Mike Livingston – Rudolph Libbe Inc.
Tanushree Sinha – OEPA
Patricia Tebbe – OEPA
Alex Smaili – OEPA
Chad Lulfs, P.E., P.S. – City of Napoleon
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
1
Introduction
Spring Semester 2008
Team Members:
Abdallah Ahmed
Evan DiSanto
Mark Hall
Matt Longfield
Chet Manz
Ben Perry
Adam Szabo
Faculty Mentors:
Cyndee Gruden Ph.D., PE
Assistant Professor
Douglas Nims Ph.D., PE
Associate Professor
ODOT Contact:
Ms. Bernadette Barth, P.E.
Project Manager 2
Ohio Department of Transportation
(419)-373-4343
Craig Schneiderbauer
Henry County Garage Manager
(419) 592-1838
Problem Statement:
ODOT’s Henry County Highway Garage is in need of
renovations in the areas of the building, site layout, and
water management. The goal is to provide the garage
workers with an adequate and efficient retrofit to their
facility to bring it up to present standards. The provided
outline details some of the issues that were identified
during the group visit to the facility.
Objectives:
Redesign of site layout to improve efficiency of
space and traffic flow.
Redesign of pavement for maximum longevity
and minimum amount of maintenance.
Maximization of space in ODOT Office/Garage.
Recommend techniques and practices to help
achieve energy reduction mandate.
Minimize water runoff and address water
management issues to meet EPA regulations.
Constraints:
Remediate current site
Budget comparison to cost of new facility.
State mandated energy reduction of 15% by
2011.
OEPA stringent requirements for water runoff
management
Maintain operational working conditions within
the proposed design options
Provide garage space for a minimum of 13
tandem axle trucks.
Provide paved parking areas for 50 cars.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
2
Solution Approach:
In the development of the proposal, innovative methods will be investigated to address
the current problems within the facility while considering the given constraints. During this
process, the budget will be understood and all possible efforts will be made to maintain an
engineer’s social responsibility. The provided solutions will focus on the following issues.
Improve the general layout and operational efficiency of the site.
Address the water intake system and manage water discharge from the site.
Renovate the main building and garage to accommodate space requirements and worker
comfort.
Schedule and Person Loading
Request for proposal submittal to ODOT will be on February 15th
. A draft of the final
report will be presented to ODOT on April 17th
. The final presentation will be displayed on
April 24th
. The final report will be submitted on May 1st.
The loading of each group member shall be approximately 160 hours of work.
Conclusion and Recommendations
All the design options presented address the issues and fit within the constraints.
Reference the design documents for drawings, specifications, and recommendations of each.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
3
Problem Statement
There are many issues that need to be addressed concerning the Henry County Highway
Garage. From the site visit to ODOT’s Henry County Garage, it is apparent that there are several
problems that can be addressed to retrofit the facility to provide a more efficient and worker
friendly environment. Specifically, there are numerous civil engineering related problems that
will be investigated in order to improve the facility. The design team will use their engineering
abilities to provide innovative, cost effective and safe ways to resolve the current problems. The
provided outline details some of the issues that were identified during the group visit to the
facility. A plan view drawing can be seen if Figure 1 of the existing site.
1. Site Layout
There is an inadequate amount of storage on the site. There are many pieces of
equipment that are currently being stored outside due to lack of space. In
addition, the equipment storage buildings need concrete slab floors as the
equipment is currently sitting on dirt and gravel. The lighting is poor and bird
droppings are causing sanitary problems. There is a need for heating and
insulation in the buildings.
There are currently three salt sheds and one dome on site. This setup uses more
room than is necessary. With the current layout, rain is able to enter the salt
buildings. This washes the salt away, which is a concern to the OEPA. Thus, a
method must be incorporated to minimize this occurrence. In addition, the roof
and truss system may need to be replaced due to corrosion and dry rot of the
wood.
The actual layout of the site is ineffective. The traffic flow in and out of the site
leads to operational inefficiencies. There is an insufficient amount of parking
spaces. As currently situated, the parking spaces are too small in size and
number.
The pavement is cracked very badly and requires redesign. The logistics of the
parking lot are not very good. Traffic flow patterns and lack of manueverability
for the trucks congest the site frequently. The gasoline pumps are used constantly
by the trucks and are only accessible from one side, which adds to the congestion.
More space is needed and the turning radius of the trucks needs to be taken into
account in the new design.
2. Building
Office Space – There is insufficient room to accommodate the employees
working at the facility. There has been a request to double the size of the offices
and at least triple the size of the break room. The break room is often used as a
meeting room, however there is not enough room for everyone to sit. In addition,
the locker room for the workers is located in the hallway that is too short and
narrow.
Garage – The space for the trucks to park is inadequate and three additional trucks
need to be accommodated as a result of the expansion of State Route 24.
Mechanics Garage – There is not enough space to accommodate the large trucks.
The mechanic needs an office and there is inadequate storage for parts.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
4
ODOT and all state agencies have been ordered to reduce energy consumption by
15% before the year 2011.
There is a significant amount of heat loss every time the door opens. Methods
and practices to minimize heat loss need to be implemented. This system should
ensure that the garage maintains a minimum operating temperature of 50o
F. This
will aid in meeting the energy mandate from the state.
3. Water
The drainage in the garage is insufficient. All water ends up in the leach field
which is not a satisfactory practice according to the OEPA due to the
environmental impact caused by the particulate and soluble pollutants.
The building does not have city water tap available and insead uses a small
collection pond in the back of the lot as its source. The water purification system
does receive any confidence from the workers. For example, the water treated by
the system is not consumed by any of the workers and drinking bottled water is a
common practice. A new system will be necessary to facilitate a healthier
working environment.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
6
Constraints:
The Henry County Highway Garage retrofit has constraints that are physical, regulatory,
and those proposed by ODOT. The physical constraints are obvious. The size and existing
layout present many challenges for a retrofit of the facility. The site is relatively small and
options for modifications to the existing layout are minimal. The regulatory constraints are
straightforward. The OEPA does not allow high concentrations of salt, oil, and grease from the
trucks to be discharged into the environment without treatment. Other building codes must be
adhered to in the designs. In addition, the state government has mandated that energy
consumption be reduced by 15% by 2011. ODOT has supplied the design group with several
constraints as well. These include the need for the retrofit cost to be significantly lower than the
estimated $5 million for a new facility. A requirement of a minimum of 50 parking spaces for
standard sized vehicles must be available on site. The truck garages must be able to
accommodate at least 3 new tandem axle trucks in addition to the current fleet. Lastly, ODOT
requests that the working environment for the employees be considered. This includes providing
comfortable working space and reasonable, standard working atmosphere.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
7
Design
The Henry County Highway Garage has a significant range of issues and problems that
require attention. To maintain simplicity and consistency, the design team is proposing two
cohesive design alternatives for the facility. The first option is a cost effective option, which has
the goal of addressing the current issues with the minimum required work and cost. In this
design, modifications were only made where necessary. The second option is an ideal option,
which is aimed at providing optimum efficiency and functionality for the site. Several of the
proposed solutions are redundant to each option. In reality, many of the alternatives presented in
these two options are interchangeable. This is to offer a broad prospective of several alternatives
that can be used to retrofit the facility.
Site Layout
As currently situated, the site layout is ineffective and inefficient. Much of this is due to
poor traffic routing on the site. Currently, ODOT plow trucks can only fill their gas tanks from
one side of the pump. This causes congestion during snow events. In addition, there is a
concrete island installed to protect the gas tanks, which are currently blocks access to one side of
the pump. This setup causes advanced deterioration of the pavement. Entering and exiting the
site is yet another problem for the trucks due to insufficient turning radii throughout the site. An
additional traffic problem is the existence of lawn islands that severely block truck traffic and
civilian cars.
Along with the traffic flow issues, there are other layout inefficiencies. One of the key
identified issues with the site is the existence of three salt sheds on the western part of the site.
The configuration of the three buildings uses more space than is necessary. Consolidation of the
salt sheds will help to free valuable site space. The same reasoning applies with the equipment
sheds. Moving these sheds to a more permanent location will help improve the functionality of
the site layout.
The site layout design aims to correct these inefficiencies. The problems are addressed in
the proposed designs. Many of the researched site layout designs are implemented in both
options. These compatible solutions are presented prior to individual options. The plan view of
each layout can be viewed in Appendix I-H.
Combined Option I and Option II
There are three solutions to the site layout that are combined and will be implemented in
both options. The first solution is the pavement design for the site. Along with conventional
pavement design, the design team also researched permeable pavement and geosynthetic
reinforcement. Additionally, an automatic truck wash is recommended in each option. Finally,
salt dome reconfiguration is required in each.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
8
Pavement
Due to the current condition of the pavement on site, it has been deemed unacceptable
and will be replaced. Heavy duty pavement was specified to combat the accelerated pavement
deterioration caused by the trucks. Additionally, a parking area for standard size vehicles was
specified with its own regular asphalt design to help minimize costs. The new pavement will
cover the entire drivable area of the site. Pavement design and drawings will can be found in
Appendix I-A.
One alternative to having conventional pavement is the use of porous pavement. This
can be seen typically in areas that contain lighter traffic such. Porous pavement includes a
porous material that allows water to drain into the stone bed beneath it and infiltrate into the soil.
Suspended solids, metals, oil and grease are removed as the water passes through. Instead of
releasing rainfall and other runoff into the storm sewers, the pavement will allow the entering
water to replenish the water table and aquifers. This is pleasing to the EPA, as it will be help
reduce any runoff issues.
The makeup of porous pavement is different than that of conventional pavement. It
contains a Portland cement binder and aggregates. Fine aggregates are emitted, which allows for
empty spaces. These empty spaces are either filled with porous aggregate or soil mixed with
grass seed. High infiltration and air exchange rates are direct result of the high porosity. This is
beneficial for the environment and energy savings.
Porous pavement may not always be the best choice for use. It is dependent upon several
criteria of the site that it will be used on. The in-situ properties of the soil are significant in
determining whether porous pavement can be used. For example, the sub-base soil must have a
high permeability so that the water can filter through. Otherwise, during the winter months,
freezing and thawing can become major issues for the unfiltered water. Another problem that
can occur is the clogging of the porous pavement due to excessive contaminants in the runoff
water. This can especially be a problem at the ODOT garage due to the large amounts of salt,
oil, and grease that can develop on the surface. It would not be feasible to use porous pavement
on the areas where the large trucks will drive due to the clogging that can occur from the heavy
loadings. It would be better to use it on areas such as parking. Porous pavement is a great,
innovative design for dealing with water issues on pavement. However, it does not seem feasible
to use it on the ODOT garage site.
Another pavement alternative investigated was the use of geosynthetic materials to
reinforce the pavement. Several advantages were identified. The strength increase is an obvious
advantage. They can be installed very quickly with minimal extra labor when laying down
asphalt. Geosynthetics are also more sustainable than traditional excavation and construction.
They reduce the use of natural resources and environmental damage caused by quarrying,
trucking, and other material handling activities. They also take up less space in a landfill than
traditional soil and aggregate layers. Geosynthetic materials are proven to be versatile and cost
effective ground modification materials. They can be applied to subgrade separation and
stabilization, base reinforcement, overlay stress absorption, and overlay reinforcement.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
9
Concrete Slabs
Concrete slabs were designed for the truck wash, storage sheds and the mechanics’
garage. ODOT identified the storage sheds as a high priority for the installation of the slabs.
The new slabs will provide a better environment to maintain the machinery in good working
condition. Each of the slabs was calculated using the ODOT Pavement Design and
Rehabilitation Manual. The slab calculations can be found in Appendix I-B.
Automatic Truck Wash
To aid in addressing the issue of the salt runoff coming from the site, the design team
specified the installation of an automatic truck wash. This system will collect the majority of the
salt that is washed from the trucks and prevent it from entering the surrounding environment.
This will alleviate a major OEPA concern about the site.
The automatic truck wash selected is supplied through InterClean Equipment Inc. The
InterClean system has a proven performance record with the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation and Turnpike Commission. The company is accessible via the internet, and was
contacted to determine a suitable and competitive alternative for the site. The InterClean system
utilizes high pressure pumps to thoroughly wash the vehicles. The system is designed to
completely wash and de-salt trucks in a time of approximately 90 seconds. Not only will this
system improve washing efficiency, it will also greatly reduce the man hours currently used to
rinse and wash trucks. The welfare of the workers will improve as well since the hassles of truck
washing will not have to be dealt with. The time saved by using this wash system will allow
workers to spend their time doing more productive activities. Due to the water scarcity on site,
any automatic truck wash would have to provide water recycling capabilities. Consequently, the
selected InterClean system recycles 85% of the wash water used. See Table 1 for a feasibility
analysis of the truck wash. Additionally, Appendix I-C contains quantitative data of the current
and future operational costs of the system.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
10
Table 1: Automatic Truck Wash Feasibility Analysis
Feasibility Analysis
Do Nothing
Total $71,426.09 dollar/yr $71,426.09 dollar/year
InterClean System - Cost Effective Option
Total Wash Costs/ Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year
Investment $196,468.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $23,084.99 dollar/year
Building $30,000.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $3,525.00 dollar/year
Annual Operating and Maintenance $25,000.00 dollar/year $25,000.00 dollar/year
Total $58,953.07 dollar/year
InterClean System – Ideal Option
Total Wash Costs/Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year
Investment $196,468.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $23,084.99 dollar/year
Building $70,000.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $8,225.00 dollar/year
Annual Operating and Maintenance $25,000.00 dollar/year $25,000.00 dollar/year
Total $63,653.07 dollar/year
Salt Domes
The current layout of the salt domes is inefficient and blocking space that could be better
utilized. To make room for new buildings, the two salt sheds will be demolished. This loss
causes a shortage of salt storage on the site. Therefore, it is logical to construct a larger dome on
the site. This negates the usefulness of the one remaining dome, so it will be razed as well. The
removing and consolidating of the domes will provide required space for a separate wash bay to
be constructed.
The proposed dome will be situated at the current site of the sheds between the side
entrances. This dome should have a door or other covering on the front to prevent salt runoff
during wet weather events. The new dome will be prefabricated and will have the capacity to
meet the 1000 ton demand for the facility. This style of dome has a 50-foot diameter dome with
a 6 inch concrete slab. The cost estimate of the dome can be clearly located in the cost estimate
for Option I and II. A schematic of a typical dome can be found in Appendix I-D.
Gas Pumps and Storage Tanks
Finally, the present layout of the gas pumps does not mesh with the proposed traffic flow.
This is due to the grade difference of the concrete slab located over the tanks. Hence, the pumps
are only accessible from one side and traffic congestion ensues. To remove this slab and lower
the pumps, new codes would have to be followed and a high cost would be incurred. To avoid
retrofitting the tanks, the design team recommends that the surrounding pavement grade be
raised to meet the slab grade.
In the concrete slab calculations for the storage sheds, the thickest slab needed to support
the weight of the trucks and machines is a 6 inch, mesh reinforced slab. The tanks already have
a 6 inch steel reinforced slab over them, along with 2 feet of specified backfill. This slab will be
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
11
stronger than the one designed for the storage sheds. Hence, it will be sufficient for the trucks to
safely pass over them without any damage to the gas tanks.
Option I – Cost Effective Option
The cost effective option aims for a less expensive, less involved redesign. For the site
layout, minimal alterations were made to modify the existing site. This is to keep costs as low as
possible while addressing the outlined problems. The remaining areas in the site layout for
Option I are the automatic truck wash building, the storage sheds, and parking. The plan view
drawing for Option I can be seen in Figure 2 and in Appendix I-H.
Figure 2: Option I Site Layout
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
12
Automatic Truck Wash Building
A building to house the automatic truck wash is a necessity. The design team contacted
Olympia Steel Buildings for a quote on a prefabricated building to accommodate the truck wash.
The building will be located on western side of the site, south of the existing garage. A
prefabricated option was chosen because it saves on consulting fees involved with a designed
building. A clear span frame was chosen to provide maximum space for the trucks in the
building. The details of the prefabricated truck wash building can be seen in Appendix I-E.
Storage Sheds
The cost effective option will also attempt to maximize site space without the demolition
and reconstruction of new storage sheds. The northern most shed will be lifted and moved to a
new location with the other to form an “L” shape. Additionally, the sheds will have new
concrete slab floors to protect vehicles and other equipment kept in the sheds. The calculations
for these slabs can be found in Appendix I-B. Two companies were contacted for price quotes to
move the storage sheds; one local and one national. This was done to give a more accurate
estimate for the relocation.
Parking
Parking was the next issue addressed for the site. 56 parking spaces were provided for
current and future employees at the ODOT facility to use. There are enough spaces to
accommodate 2 spaces per employee and additional visitors. The parking was situated so as to
minimize truck/car conflict. Furthermore, adequate space was left around the spaces for trucks
and other equipment to maneuver in and around the site. Also, the parking spaces were
conservatively sized at 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep to provide sufficient room for larger
vehicles.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
13
Option II – Ideal Option
In Option II, a more comprehensive design philosophy was undertaken. These solutions
are designed to fully correct the problems involved with the site layout. For this option, the
specific focus areas are a new mechanics’ garage and automatic truck wash building, a new
storage shed, and a parking layout. This layout can be seen in Figure 3 and in Appendix I-H.
Figure 3: Option II Site Layout
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
14
Mechanics’ Garage/Automatic Truck Wash Building
The mechanics garage will be relocated to a new building southwest of the current
mechanics’ garage. This new building will be a prefabricated unit and will be composed of four
different sections. The first section of this new building will house the automatic truck wash.
The second section will be utilized as storage, mechanics’ offices, or additional truck parking as
needed. This second section can possibly be upgraded to other uses in the future as the need may
arise. The third and fourth sections will be the mechanics’ bays. This combines two necessary
structures into one, which will save on energy and initial investment costs. As in Option I, a
prefabricated building quote was obtained from Olympia Steel Buildings. The prefabricated
building for the mechanics’ garage can be found in Appendix I-F.
Storage Sheds
The ideal option will also attempt to maximize storage space on the site for backhoes,
trucks and other expensive items that need to be stored indoors. To accomplish this, the two
current storage sheds will be demolished. A large, prefabricated shed will then be installed
easterly of the current pump station near the pond. This new shed will serve two purposes. The
first purpose is that it is larger and will be easier to maneuver equipment in than the reconfigured
sheds of Option I. The second purpose is that is addresses the sanitary issues of bird droppings
that are currently being encountered. This design is a clear span frame as well, which should
help correct the bird problem. As with the other prefabricated buildings, this system was
provided by Olympia Steel Buildings and is cost effective. The prefabricated shed can be seen in
Appendix I-G.
Parking
Similar to the cost effective option, parking was rerouted to the eastern region of the site.
Adequate space for 50 parking spaces was provided to the north of the new storage shed. The
parking spaces are located outside of the general traffic zone for the trucks. The same logic that
was applied to the parking solution in Option I is consistent with the logic applied in this option
as well.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
15
Building
Currently, the focal predicament of the office building and garage is the inadequate
amount of space. Workers are congested in every aspect of the building. From cramped offices
and “standing room only” during lunch, to the confining garage; the facility needs more space.
Office space is a shared commodity, with parts of it located in hallways. The mechanics’ garage
does not have enough room for storage. As a result, renting equipment is often the only resort to
get the tools that are needed. The garage is extremely short and narrow. More space will be
needed to accommodate at least 3 new, tandem axle trucks with the expanded US-24. Also, the
narrow width makes turning into the spaces extremely difficult. Several maneuvers are
demanded from the trucks in order to park. When asked, one of the truck drivers recommended
that at least 10 additional feet would help remedy the dilemma.
The retrofit to the main complex was aimed at increasing and creating usable space.
Redundant walls were removed and unused space was reacquired to meet this goal. The building
is split into three focus areas for each design option. These three areas entail the truck garage,
mechanics’ garage and the current office and lunch room space. While the provided designs are
separated into two specific options, the concepts of each area in the design are interchangeable.
An energy analysis is provided that is usable for both options.
Energy
To assist ODOT in meeting the energy reduction mandate from the state, some
investigation was performed to see where energy could be saved. General recommendations
such as better insulation and motion sensor lighting would make sense for the facility. Practices
such as only opening one garage door at a time would save greatly on heating as well. One idea
is to install plastic flaps (similar to those found at automatic car washes) on the inside of the
garage doors. The trucks could drive through the flaps, and they would help block the warm air
from exiting the garage in winter months.
Lighting
The area that was thoroughly researched was the lighting. Many of the current light
fixtures can be replaced with energy efficient lights. A detailed takeoff of the office building
was compiled and analyzed. After the takeoff was completed, Tony Kern with Westfield
Electric was contacted to supply a quote that would detail the cost of upgrading the lights. The
submitted price totals $26,410. This includes the removal of all existing fixtures in addition to
material and installation costs. Detailed cut sheets of the lighting can be seen in Appendix III-C.
Along with the takeoff is a feasibility analysis showing the payback period for the
expenditures. Table 2 shows the energy costs of the existing facility in comparison to the
proposed energy saving alternatives. It can be seen that the energy savings for the facility would
approximately be $3,500. In identifying this value, it can be seen that the payback period for this
project would be just over 7 years. This plan alone constitutes a 49.5% energy reduction of the
energy being exerted on building lighting. Another recommendation made to achieve additional
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
16
energy savings is the installation of watt stoppers amounting to $250.00 each. Considering the
mandate imposed by the state, these lighting savings would be highly beneficial.
Table 2: Lighting Analysis
Option I – Cost Effective Option
In Option I, the three focus areas remain inside the building. Also, minimal changes to
the current structure are proposed. This is to help reduce the overall cost. A layout for the
mechanics’ garage and office and lunch room area can be seen in Figure 4 and in Appendix II-B.
EXISTING
Type Quantity Type Volt Wattage Hours/Year KWH/Year Energy Cost
D 12 HID Highbay 208 458 3472 19082.112 2,480.67
E 7 HID Highbay 208 458 3472 11131.232 1,447.06
M 4 HID Highbay 208 458 3472 6360.704 826.89
L 5 Enclosed Strip 120 169 3472 2933.84 381.40
C 1 KILLARK 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY
K 2 ART METAL 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY
P 5 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 2569.28 334.01
A 8 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 4110.848 534.41
B 1 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 513.856 66.80
N 1 2x4 Troffer 120 148 3472 513.856 66.80
F 4 Industrial 120 169 3472 2347.072 305.12
F 16 Industrial 120 169 3472 9388.288 1,220.48
7,663.64
2473
PROPOSED ENERGY SAVING ALTERNATES
Type Quantity Type Volt Wattage Hours/Year KWH/Year Energy Cost
D 12 T5HO Highbay 208 240 3472 9999.36 1,299.92
E 7 T5HO Highbay 208 240 3472 5832.96 758.28
M 4 T5HO Highbay 208 240 3472 3333.12 433.31
L 5 Enclosed Strip 120 112 3472 1944.32 252.76
C 1 KILLARK 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY
K 2 ART METAL 120 3472 0 0.00 CANNOT IDENTIFY
P 5 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 833.28 108.33
A 8 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 1333.248 173.32
B 1 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 166.656 21.67
N 1 2x4 Troffer 120 48 3472 166.656 21.67
F 4 Industrial 120 112 3472 1555.456 202.21
F 16 Industrial 120 112 3472 6221.824 808.84
4,080.29
1248 SAVINGS 3,583.35Total Watt Consumption
Total Watt Consumption
Total Energy Reduction
for Building Light
Fixtures0.495 or 49.5%
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
17
Figure 4: Option I Office and Mechanics’ Garage Layout
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
18
Truck Garage
In the building design, the first area to be addressed is the truck garage. To solve the
issue of space, a new, structurally separate garage will be constructed adjacent to the north wall
of the existing garage. The addition will use a majority of the 65 feet between the existing
garage and the fence line, which is ample space for an addition. This proposed garage will have
roughly the same dimensions as the current garage, essentially doubling the provided space for
the trucks. The new structure will give the facility the capacity to acquire new trucks. The
parking spots in the existing and new garage will have a steeper angle and greater width than the
current setup. This will remove the difficulties associated with parking the trucks. To gain
access to the new structure, doors can be installed through the north wall of the existing garage.
A minimal gap between the current and proposed buildings is required due to the
geometry of the strip footings. Thus, the design group determined that this gap should be usable
and accessible space. A five foot walkway will be provided between the current garage and the
proposed garage. Finally, the soil bearing pressure was checked against the addition of the new
building. The additional load on the soil due to the new garage could potentially overstress the
soil. Using the allowable bearing capacity for the soil and geometric factors, calculations prove
that the new garage will have a negligible impact. These calculations can be found in Appendix
II-A.
Mechanics’ Garage
The second area of focus is the mechanics’ garage and the existing wash bay. The wash
bay will be removed and relocated to a separate location on the site. That space will then be
remodeled to be used for storage, tools, offices, or anything the mechanics may need. Removing
the wall between the existing wash bay and the mechanics’ garage was investigated. This would
incur a significant increase in renovation cost. Other complexities arose such as cracking the
masonry and lifting the roof during the removal of the wall. These combined with the cost
deemed this solution to be unreasonable.
Offices/Lunch Room Area
The final area of concentration in the main building is the office and lunch room area in
the southeastern corner. To grant more space to this area, the southern wall from the southeast
corner of the building to the mechanics garage will be extended approximately 30 feet to the
south. The lunch room will remain in its current location, and gain the additional space from the
new wall. The extended area directly south of the mechanics’ storage room will be renovated
into a new office. The space annexed just east of the entrance will be used for more new offices.
The new layout will also reserve space for separate locker rooms for men and women. The
women’s locker room will use the space of the current rest room and gain the hallways to the
south and west. Similar to the women’s, the men’s locker room will use the current rest room
and acquire the two office rooms in the southeast corner of the existing building. This will leave
sufficient space for showers, lockers, and rest rooms in each locker room.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
19
This extra space will expand the lunch room and increase office capacity. Six new
offices will be installed using the space from the addition. The size of the lunch room will be
approximately four times larger than the current room. Existing load bearing walls were left in
place for cost efficiency and simplicity. The showers and bathrooms are conveniently situated
near the same location as the existing plumbing for the bathrooms. The proposed office layout
can be found in Appendix II-C.
Option II – Ideal Option
In the ideal option, the same areas of the building are addressed. However, as outlined in
the ideal option for the site design, the mechanics’ garage will be relocated to a new building.
This will provide them with a new and adequate facility. In addition, this will free up a large
amount usable space for the rest of the building. A layout for the current mechanics’ area and
office and lunch room area can be seen in Figure 5 and in Appendix II-B.
Figure 5: Option II Office Layout
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
20
Truck Garage
More space in the truck garage will be created by eliminating everything except for the
southern wall. The garage will then be rebuilt and widened to approximately double its current
width. The new setup will allow for parking on both sides of the garage and more maneuvering
room for the trucks. The capacity of the garage will increase in order to house the new trucks
that will be acquired with the expanded US-24. It is also more cohesive for the building as
compared to Option I. A single garage will eliminate the inconveniences caused by the second
detached garage. Also, the maintenance and operational cost of one large garage will be less
than it would be for two.
Offices/Lunch Room Area
The majority of the space occupied by the existing mechanics’ garage will be utilized for
a new lunch room, which will be approximately four times larger than the current lunch room.
The rest of the space will be converted into three more offices that will be located along the
southern wall of the existing mechanics’ garage. The former wash bay will be converted into
four new offices, each with a door leading into the lunch room. The existing lunch room will
then be converted into two more offices. The mechanics’ office will remain an office. The
bathrooms will be modified in accordance with Option I.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
21
Water
In the current situation, the water management including the intake and discharge at the
facility is a key issue. The OEPA has voiced their concerns regarding the water discharge from
the Henry County Highway Garage. The salt runoff from the trucks and the salt storage sheds
can significantly impact the biological cycle of the surrounding vicinity. In addition, soap and
other chemical contaminants from the garage are harmful to the neighboring area. The existing
source water for the facility has a reputation amongst the workers for being unreliable and
unsanitary. It operates out of a collection pond on the south end of the site. The design team has
outlined two options to assuage OEPA concerns and instill confidence amongst the workers in
their source water.
The location of the site hinders the feasibility of many solutions to these problems. In
addition, the OEPA regulations increase the importance of remedying these issues. Taking into
consideration the problems and corresponding constraints, the design team resolved rational
solutions in each of the design options.
Option I – Cost Effective Option
The water management section of Option I aims to correct the water source and discharge
issues with a minimal amount of modifications. Simple solution approaches to each area are
taken to help keep the cost low while still addressing the issues. The locations of the proposed
solutions can be found on the site layout drawing for Option I in Figure 2 and in Appendix I-H.
Water Discharge
The first issue addressed in the cost effective alternative is the water discharge from the
site. Currently, there is no on-site treatment for any water exiting the property. There are
particular areas of the site that require specific attention. For example, the runoff occurring from
the garage area is contaminated with particulate and soluble pollutants. Thus, a new retention
pond will be excavated to receive this runoff. This retention pond will function to treat any
runoff coming from all areas of the site. It applies processes such as settling, sorption, filtration,
infiltration, biodegradation/bioassimilation, nitrification/denitrification, volatilization and
phytoremediation. The sanitary discharge from the complex will still be treated in the existing
leach field.
The pond will be located on the southern end of the site adjacent to the existing collection
pond. This location is practical due to the open space and relative proximity to the drainage
ditch that is south of the property. This is convenient for periodic discharges from the pond. The
pond will be able to remove the salt from the site runoff in compliance with the OPEA
regulations. In addition, the majority of the cost associated with the pond is in the initial
construction. The operational and maintenance costs are relatively low. Calculations and
dimensions for the retention pond can be found in Appendix III-A.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
22
Water Source
The second issue concerning water management is the source for the facility. A small
filtering system such as a Kinetico drinking water system will be utilized as a post treatment
system to facilitate worker confidence. This will supplement the current system to provide
drinking water that is trusted by the employees. Therefore, the workers will no longer feel like
they have to use bottled water at all times. This system will be installed such that it is accessible
at a select few locations within the facility. All of the other potable water flow will remain within
the current system. A summary of the feasibility analysis between installing a Kinetico system
compared to using Culligan water is shown below in Table 3. The complete, detailed analysis is
provided in Appendix III-C. Information on the Kinetico system can be found in Appendix III-C
as well.
Table 3: Drinking Water Analysis
Drinking Water
Intital Cost Maintenance
Cost/year 5 Year
Cost/person/day
Kinetico $1,600 $100 $0.058
Cooler Rental
Cost/Month Refill
Cost/Jug 5 Year
Cost/person/day
Culligan Water $11 $6 $0.620
Option II – Ideal Option
The proposed ideal option in regards to water management places emphasis on expansion
for the site in years to come. The investigated solutions are designed to be functional as the
facility grows. However, many of the proposed and researched solutions were deemed
impractical. This is due to the location of the site. It is far enough away from any municipality
to make a connection to any system unreasonable.
Water Discharge
To resolve the issue of the contaminated discharge from the site, the initial solution
included a combination of an oil-grit separator, a sand filter, and a sanitary tap into the City of
Napoleon’s combined system was researched. The sewer line would eliminate the leach field
and the septic tank, which would allow for more space on the current site. The oil-grit separator
would be the first step in the runoff treatment train. After the initial treatment, the water would
pass through the sand filter. The effluent would be composed of strictly salt water. It would
then pass into a storage tank where it could have been converted into brine to be conveniently re-
used. During times of the year when salt runoff is minimal, the runoff could have been
discharged directly into the combined sewer. Details of the oil-grit separator can be seen in
Figure 6 and sand filter in Figure 7.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
23
Figure 6: Oil Grit Separator
Description: The oil/grit separator is a device designed to remove settleable solids, oil and
grease, debris and floatables from storm water runoff. This is done through gravitational settling
and trapping of pollutants. Oil-grit separators are also called gravity separators or oil/water
separators.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
24
Figure 7: Sand Filter
During the investigation of Option II, the sand filter and sanitary tap were deemed to be
impractical. The reason a sand filter will not be employed is due to the sanitary tap. Per
recommendation of ODOT, a sanitary line and tap into the City of Napoleon sanitary system via
a nearby subdivision was to be investigated. After further research with city officials, the
sanitary line does not exist in said nearby subdivision. Additionally, a tap into the current system
elsewhere would be infeasible due to location. Thus, the sand filter is unnecessary due to the
lack of a sanitary system. Given the situation, the existing leach field will be kept in use.
However, a new oil-grit separator will still be employed to clean the runoff from the main
garage, truck wash, and the site. This new separator must be installed due to the inadequacy of
the current system to deal with the additional flows and runoff. An HE-S1-500 system will be
installed north of the pond.
Water Source
The water source issue was proposed to be amended by extending an existing waterline
near the facility to the site. This would have solved any of the issues regarding the quality and
worker confidence in the current operation. In addition, there would have always been a
constant supply of water for washing vehicles and other general functions for the site.
However, a similar problem was encountered with the proposed water line extension.
Again, due to the nonexistence of city utilities in the subdivision, a water line is a practical
impossibility. A water line does exist on the north side of the Maumee River. The extension of
the waterline to the site is unreasonable as it would have to be bored underneath the river, or
extended underneath the US-6 highway bridge. The idea of boring under the river was
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
25
immediately eliminated due to its inherent infeasibility. After further consultation with Mr. Dale
Rupert with the City of Toledo, the extension underneath the bridge was also deemed to be
unviable. The impracticality stems from the issue of the pipeline freezing during winter months
and the issue of maintaining the water line during bridge maintenance.
Despite the elimination of the proposed solutions, a reasonable solution was developed.
A 6 inch well can be drilled to obtain the water flow needed to supply the facility with potable
water. Well water is naturally filtered through the ground. Therefore, the water will only need to
be treated using the current on-site system. Because of the well, the existing pond will become
redundant. Thus, it will be retrofitted into a retention pond to treat storm water runoff from the
complex. A well diagram can be found in Appendix III-D.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
26
Economics:
In the design evaluation, the design team detailed all foreseeable costs and benefits. The
costs summary associated with Options I and II are shown in the Tables below. As can be seen
in Table 4, the difference between the two options is relatively small.
Table 4: Economic Summary
Cost Summary
Section Item Option I Option II Difference
Building Office $292,111.08 $113,232.27 $178,878.81
Building Garage Addition $620,384.38 $949,853.61 $329,469.23
Site Wash Bay $307,877.29 $359,361.20 $51,483.91
Site Storage Sheds $50,643.41 $97,766.77 $47,123.35
Site Salt Dome $209,352.00 $209,352.00 $0.00
Site Asphalt Design $731,934.18 $734,933.03 $2,998.85
Site Mechanics Garage ---- $8,759.00 $8,759.00
Water Overall $108,554.69 $128,144.81 $19,590.12
Water New Retention Pond $121,378.95 --- $121,378.95
Water Retrofit Existing Pond --- $66,118.80 $66,118.80
Total $2,442,235.98 $2,667,521.48 $225,285.50
There were several areas of the project that contributed towards the similar costs. The
office expansion in Option I was necessary due to the lack of an additional mechanics’ garage.
This additional garage in Option II was not a significant additional cost since it was included in
the building with the automatic truck wash. Additionally, the new retention pond in Option I
costs more than retrofitting the existing collection pond specified in Option II. These
circumstances are the contributing factors to the close proximity of the estimates. Detailed
estimations of both options can be found in Appendix IV.
Based on the aforementioned estimates, the design team recommends that Option II be
employed to retrofit the facility. This option was designed with longevity and efficiency of the
facility in mind. It will most completely correct the identified inadequacies with the site. Given
that estimated prices associated with this option is only $225,000 higher, it is logical to
implement this option.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
27
People Contacted
Bernadette Barth
ODOT District 2 Facilities Manager
317 East Poe Rd
Bowling Green, Ohio, 43402
419.373.4343
Craig Schneiderbauer
Henry County Garage Manager
US 6 and SR 110
Napoleon, Ohio 43545
419.592.1838
Randolf Germann
Henry County Engineer
660 N. Perry Street, Suite 101
Napoleon, Ohio 43545
419.592.2976
Jon Bisher
Napoleon City Manager
255 W. Riverview
Napoleon, Ohio 43545
419.592.4010
Roger Noblit
City of Napoleon Water and Wastewater Department
735 E. Washington St
Napoleon, Ohio 43545
419.592.3936
Chad Lulfs
City of Napoleon Engineer
255 W. Riverview Ave.
Napoleon, OH 43545
419.592.4010
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
29
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Weather Conditions: Sunny, Windy and Bitterly Cold
Site Location: US 6 and SR 110, Napoleon, Ohio 43545
The first site visit occurred under the supervision of Bernadette Barth and Craig Schneiderbauer.
This formally introduced the facility to the students. Many problems about the current site and
building were discussed such as the space constraints, water discharge, and the current pavement.
All of the group members were present during this visitation to collect first hand information and
other data.
Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Weather Conditions: Cold with Falling Snow
Site Location: 200 Lemoyne Rd., Northwood, Ohio 43619
The second site visit for this project was to the ODOT garage located in Northwood, Ohio. This
is located in a southeastern suburb of Toledo off of I-280. Bernadette Barth coordinated this
visit with two of the students in the group. The goal of this visit was to observe another, more up
to date site than the Henry County Garage to provide insight into possible solutions to the other
site.
Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2008
Weather Conditions: Windy, Cold, and Heavy Snow
Site Location: US 6 and SR 110, Napoleon, Ohio 43545
The third site visit was to the Henry County Garage. Dr. Douglas Nims and two of the group
members studied the site to get a closer perspective on possible design solutions. During this
visit, a couple of the workers were interviewed to get direct insight into some of the issues. In
addition, a copy of the site plans was obtained by the students.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-1
Appendices:
Table of Contents
I. Site Layout Design Material ........................................................................................................2
A. Ashpalt Design .......................................................................................................................2
B. Slab Calculations ..................................................................................................................13
C. Wash Bay Calculations .........................................................................................................24
D. Prefabricated Dome ..............................................................................................................32
E. Prefabricated Truck Wash ....................................................................................................33
F. Prefabricated Mechanics’ Garage/Truck Wash ....................................................................34
G. Prefabricated Storage Shed ..................................................................................................35
H. Drawings ..............................................................................................................................36
II. Building Design Material .........................................................................................................39
A. Soil Bearing Capacity ...........................................................................................................39
B. Drawings ..............................................................................................................................41
C. Energy Analysis ....................................................................................................................44
III. Water Management Design Material ......................................................................................54
A. Detailed Calculations ...........................................................................................................54
B. Table Calculations ................................................................................................................58
C. Feasibility Analysis ..............................................................................................................60
D. Well Diagram .......................................................................................................................62
IV. Estimation Tables ....................................................................................................................63
A. Option I .................................................................................................................................63
B. Option II ...............................................................................................................................66
V. Site Pictures ..............................................................................................................................69
VI. Statement of Qualifications .....................................................................................................76
VII. Project Grading Guidelines ...................................................................................................86
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-2
I. Site Layout Design Material
A. Asphalt Design1,2,3
Heavy Duty Asphalt Design
Assumptions:
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for B and C Vehicles:
Year 2008 2018
B (Tandem) 24 60
(Single) 60 60
C 40 60
Total 124 180
Lanes:
2 Lanes
24 hr Truck Traffic:
100%
Actual B:C Distribution Calculated from ADT Above:
Year 2008 2018
B 0.677419 0.666667
C 0.322581 0.333333
Soil Type
FuA
Soil Liquid Limit
83.453
2
6040
2
6040
2
4035
1 "ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual." Section 200:Pavement Design Concepts. 25 October 2007.
Ohio Department of Transportation. 20 Mar 2008
<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pavement/Pubs/PDRMc/Sect200.pdf>. 2 "ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual." Section 400: Flexible Pavement Design Procedures and
Considerations. 11 November 2007. Ohio Department of Transportation. 20 Mar 2008
<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pavement/Pubs/PDRMc/Sect400.pdf>. 3 "Soil Data Mart for Henry County, Ohio." USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States
Department of Agriculture. 3 Mar 2008
<http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=OH069&UseState=OH>.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-3
Soil Plastic Index
33.233
2
3418
2
3418
2
2412
Percentage of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve
83.903
2
10080
2
10090
2
9580
Design Steps
ODOT 203-2 - Group Index
14.5 ≈ 15
ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus
GI = 15
CBR = 4.2
MR= 1200 * 4.2 = 5040 psi
ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors
Directional Distribution = 50%
Lane Factor = 100%
B Factor = 1.45
C Factor = 0.58
ODOT 402-1 - ESAL from B Trucks
5845.1*)3
2(*1*5.0*1*120 ESAL
ODOT 402-1 - ESAL from C Trucks
8.558.0*)3
1(*1*5.0*1*60 ESAL
ODOT 402-1 - Design ESAL
059,46620*25.365*8.63 ESAL
ODOT 402-1 – Design Factors
Reliability = 85% (Figure 201-1)
Overall Standard Deviation = 0.49 (Figure 201-1)
ESALs = 4.66 x 105 ESAL
Resilience Modulus = 5040 psi (MR above)
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-4
Determine Structural Number:
Using the Flexible Design Chart on from ODOT manual page 402-2 and the numbers and
calculations from steps above, a Structural Number (SN) is found for the Pavement.
SN ≈ 3.3
Heavy Duty Asphalt Design:
Heavy Duty Design Inches Coefficient SN
304 Aggregate Base 6 0.14 0.84
302 Bituminous Base 4 0.35 1.4
446 Asphalt Type2 1.5 0.35 0.525
446 Type 1H 1.5 0.46 0.69
Design SN 3.455
Actual Structural Number of the Pavement Design is larger than the Structural Number of the
Pavement obtained from the Design Chart; therefore the Pavement will meet the Structural
needs.
Regular Duty Asphalt Design
Assumptions:
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for B and C Vehicles:
Year 2008 2018
B 2 4
C 40 60
Total 42 64
Lanes:
2 Lanes
24 hr Truck Traffic:
20% (High but Conservative)
Actual B:C Distribution Calculated from ADT Above:
Year 2008 2018
B 0.047619 0.0625
C 0.952381 0.9375
Soil Type
FuA
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-5
Soil Liquid Limit
83.453
2
6040
2
6040
2
4035
Soil Plastic Index
33.233
2
3418
2
3418
2
2412
Percentage of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve
83.903
2
10080
2
10090
2
9580
Design Steps
ODOT 203-2 - Group Index
14.5 ≈ 15
ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus
GI = 15
CBR = 4.2
MR= 1200 * 4.2 = 5040 psi
ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors
Directional Distribution = 50%
Lane Factor = 100%
B Factor = 0.89
C Factor = 0.75
ODOT 402-1 - ESAL from B Trucks
)89.0(*)0625.0(*1*)5.0(*1*4 0.11125 ESAL
ODOT 402-1 - ESAL from C Trucks
)75.0(*)9375.0(*1*5.0*)2.0(*60 4.2187 ESAL
ODOT 402-1 - Design ESAL
65.630,3120*25.365*33.4 ESAL
Use 50,000 ESALs due to the fact that it is the lowest ESAL value on the Flexible Pavement
Design Chart.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-6
ODOT 402-1 – Design Factors
Reliability = 85% (Figure 201-1)
Overall Standard Deviation = 0.49 (Figure 201-1)
ESALs = 4.66 x 105 ESAL
Resilience Modulus = 5040 psi (MR above)
Determine Structural Number:
Using the Flexible Design Chart on from ODOT manual page 402-2 and the numbers and
calculations from steps above, a Structural Number (SN) is found for the Pavement.
SN ≈ 2.25
Regular Duty Pavement Design:
Regular Duty Design Inches Coefficient SN
304 Aggregate Base 6 0.14 0.84
301 Bituminous Base 3 0.35 1.05
448 Asphalt Type2 1.5 0.35 0.525
448 Type 1 1 0.43 0.43
Design SN 2.845
Actual Structural Number of the Pavement Design is larger than the Structural Number of the
Pavement obtained from the Design Chart; therefore the Pavement will meet the Structural
needs.
Pavement Design Philosophy
The first item to look at when designing asphalt is the soil beneath it; stronger soil, or sub base,
would mean less asphalt and aggregate needed to support the weight of the vehicles driving it.
The Henry County garage site was looked up on the United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Services web page. A soils analysis was done in order to obtain
the resilience modulus, which later helps determine the structural number. The resilience
modulus which was found from the weakest soil on site was 5040 psi. The weakest soil was
taken for conservative reasons. If the asphalt designed is strong enough to support the vehicles
with the weakest soil underneath, it will of course be able to support them with a stronger sub
base.
The second item which needs to be determined is the amount of Equivalent 18,000 lb Axle Load
(ESALs) per each type of vehicle. For the heavy duty asphalt, the area which has been
delineated for the heaver salt trucks and plows, was calculated to be mostly truck traffic, but
would still have smaller vehicle traffic. It was assumed to have roughly two thirds truck traffic
and only one third smaller vehicle traffic. The ESALs of both type B and C vehicles where
calculated using the ODOT Pavement Design Concepts in section 200. Once the ESALs where
calculated and all other numbers were obtained; the ODOT Flexible Pavement Design Chart was
used to find the structural number for the pavement. This number is used as a target number for
the pavement needing to be designed. When layers of aggregate and sub layers of asphalt are
called for, the depth of each is multiplied by a layer coefficient. The sum of these coefficients is
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-7
the actual structural number of the pavement designed. For the heavy duty pavement the
structural number became roughly 3.3. The design then was 6 inches of 304 aggregate, 4 inches
of 302 bituminous base, 1.5 inches of 446 Type 2 asphalt, and 1.5 inches of 446 Type 1H
asphalt. The Type 1H was chosen after reading the ODOT Flexible Pavement Design manual,
section 400. Type 1H is used for more heavy duty and high truck traffic areas. 446 asphalt was
chosen due to the fact that it is tested before implemented, and with the use of Type 1H, 446 is
required to be the intermediate layer. This pavement design ended up with a structural number
of 3.45 will be effectively support the weight of the vehicles.
The regular duty asphalt was to be designed for the parking area only. There should be very
minimal truck traffic (ideally, no truck traffic), but should be able to support the many cars and
pick up trucks which may show up daily. The truck traffic was assumed to be 6% with the other
94% of the traffic going to type C vehicles. The ESALs for both types of vehicles were
calculated and a number lower than the lowest on the design chart was achieved. Therefore the
lowest number of 50,000 ESALs was chosen. This satisfactory for if the ESALs is actually less
than the number used for the design, then the pavement will defiantly be able to support the
weight, and will have a little extra strength incase the truck traffic was underestimated. The
structural number was obtained just like the heavy duty pavement and the parking lot structural
number was 2.25. The design was then calculated up to be 6 inches of 304 aggregate base, 3
inches of bituminous base, 1.5 inches of 448 Type 2 asphalt as the intermediate course, and 1
inch of 448 Type 1 asphalt as the surface course. In the ODOT Flexible Design Manual, section
404.3, it describes the lift requirements of Type 1 surface asphalt. It stats that 1 inch may be
used, and that 446 should be required if uniform thickness is required. The structural number of
the parking lot asphalt design is 2.845. It therefore is above the required 2.25 structural number
and can therefore be surfaced with 448 Type 1.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-12
B. Slab Calculations 4,5,6,7,8
Wash Bay
Assumptions:
Subbase:
8” 304 Aggregate Base
A large subbase was chosen to minimize the thickness of the slab. Typical values vary from 4 to
6 inches of 304 Aggregate.
Lanes:
1 lane
A “one way” design lane was chosen due to the fact that this will lead to the worst case scenario
in addition to the Wash Bay being a one way traffic lane. When calculating the Total ESAL
value, a one way lane will have no reducing effect.
Average Daily Traffic
79.8365
3207
dayvehicle
This value was based on the number of truck washes per year.
24 hr Truck Traffic
82.3207
2645vehicles
trucks
The amount of heavy truck traffic was estimated based on the number of plow washes to the
number of total washes. This is to determine the Truck Factor when calculating Total ESALS.
Actual B:C Distribution
7.4562
2645
5:1
4 "ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual." Section 300: Rigid Pavement Design. 10
November 2007. Ohio Department of Transportation. 3 Mar 2008
<http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pavement/Pubs/PDRMc/Sect300.pdf>. 5 McCormac, Jack C. and James K. Nelson. "Design of Reinforced Concrete." Ed.. McCormac and Nelson.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. 6 "Soil Data Mart for Henry County, Ohio." USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States
Department of Agriculture. 3 Mar 2008
<http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=OH069&UseState=OH>. 7 "Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade Subjected to Heavy Loads." August 1987. Department of the Army and
Air Force. 3 Mar 2008 <http://www.army.mil/usapa/eng/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/tm5_809_12.pdf>. 8 Kissoff, Nicholas V. "CIVE 3520-041 - Transportation Engineering II." Toledo, OH. Summer 2007.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-13
To determine what the slab should be classified as, the B:C Distribution needed to be calculated.
The amount of plow trucks to the amount of pickup trucks using the wash bay was computed.
Closest ODOT Distribution
Rural Interstate (ODOT 202-1)
Based on the numbers calculated in the previous sheet, it was determined that the vehicle
distribution fit the classification for a Rural Interstate
Soil Type
FuA
Soil Liquid Limit
83.453
2
6040
2
6040
2
4035
Soil Plastic Index
33.233
2
3418
2
3418
2
2412
Percentage of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve
83.903
2
10080
2
10090
2
9580
Design Steps – From ODOT Section 300: Rigid Pavement Design
1. ODOT 203-2 - Group Index
14.5 ≈ 15
2. ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus
GI = 15
CBR = 4.2
MR= 1200 * 4.2 = 5040 psi
Based on the ODOT Manual, the Group Index is used to find the California Bearing Ratio, which
is then used to determine the Modulus of Resiliency of the soil.
3. ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors
Directional Distribution = 100%
Lane Factor = 100%
B:C Ratio= 5:1 (closest approximation)
B Factor = 1.84
C Factor = .53
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-14
These factors are taken out off of ODOT 202-1. These factors are based on the characteristics
determined in the assumptions section.
ODOT 302-1 – Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) from B Trucks
1573.1384.1*6
5*1*1*82.*92.10 ESALs/day
ODOT 302-1 - ESAL from C Trucks
179.53.*6
1*1*1*82.*92.10 ESALs/day
In this section, the equivalent single axle loads per day are being computed using the values from
ODOT 202-1. The ESAL value is usually rounded up to the nearest multiple of five or one for
small values.
ODOT 302-1 - Design ESAL
11680020*365*16 Total ESALs
The total ESALs from B and C trucks are added up and multiplied by the days in a year and the
design life to determine the ESAL the slab is subjected to in its service life.
4. ODOT 301-2 - Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Kc = 350 pci
5. ODOT 301-3 - Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
K=120 pci
The Moduli of Subgrade Reactions are selected using ODOT design charts with the Subbase
Elastic Modulus and Subgrade Resilient Modulus determining the Composite Modulus, which is
then used to read another graph 301-3 to determine the Effective Modulus.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-15
6. ODOT 302-2, 3 - Rigid Pavement Design Chart
E’c = 5000000 psi
S’c = 700 psi
J= 2.8
Cd= 1
ΔPSI = 1.7
Reliability = 90%
Use 5” Slab
Punching Shear - p.505 Design of Reinforced Concrete
Allowable Punching Shear
bwdcfVp '4
cfcS '9'
2
9
700'cf =6000 psi
2.111544*12*6000*4*75.Vp lb
Worst Case Shear
6000_1
_1000*
2*___5.__2
_30
kip
lb
axletireequivaxlerearaxlesrear
kip lb
Allowable Shear > Actual Shear; 5” Slab OK
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-16
Storage Shed Slabs
Assumptions:
Subbase:
8” 304 Aggregate Base
Lanes:
1 Lane
AADT
40 Implement/Day
This value was based on the amount of equipment currently used on site and an estimated
number of how many times a day they are used.
24 hr Truck Traffic
100%
Based on the size of the machinery utilized on site, the traffic was assumed to be all B traffic
type.
Closest ODOT Distribution
Rural Interstate (ODOT 202-1)
Soil Type
Me
Soil Liquid Limit
17.373
2
6538
2
4424
2
3220
Soil Plastic Index
67.163
2
4018
2
228
2
102
Percentage of Soil Passing No. 200 Sieve
%17.693
2
9580
2
6040
2
8555
Design Steps
1. ODOT 203-2 - Group Index
9.5 ≈ 10
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-17
2. ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus
GI = 10
CBR = 6
MR= 1200 * 6 = 7200 psi
3. ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors
Directional Distribution = 100%
Lane Factor = 100%
B:C Ratio= 5:1 (closest approximation)
B Factor = 1.84
C Factor = .53
ODOT 302-1 - ESAL from B Trucks
6533.6184.1*6
5*1*1*1*40 ESAL/day
ODOT 302-1 - ESAL from C Trucks
553.353.*6
1*1*1*1*40 ESAL/day
ODOT 302-1 - Design ESAL
51100020*365*70 Total ESAL
4. ODOT 301-2 - Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Kc = 450 pci
5. ODOT 301-3 - Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
K=150 pci
6. ODOT 302-2, 3 - Rigid Pavement Design Chart
E’c = 5000000 psi
S’c = 700 psi
J= 2.8
Cd= 1
ΔPSI = 1.7
Reliability = 90%
Use 6” Slab
Punching Shear - p.505 Design of Reinforced Concrete
Allowable Punching Shear
bwdcfVp '4
cfcS '9'
2
9
700'cf =6000 psi
7.139425*12*6000*4*75.Vp lb
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-18
Worst Case Shear
7500_1
_1000*
2
__15
kip
lb
axletire
backhoekip lb
Allowable Shear > Actual Shear; 6” Slab OK
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-19
Mechanics Bay
Assumptions:
Subbase:
8” 304 Aggregate Base
Lanes:
1 Lane
AADT
4 Trucks/Day
This number was based on an estimate of how many trucks go in and out of the Mechanics Bay
per day for service. A high value was chosen due to it leading to a more conservative design.
24 hr Truck Traffic
100%
Again, as a majority of the snow plows will use this bay for service, the truck distribution was
assumed to be 100%. Furthermore, this gives a more conservative design.
Closest ODOT Distribution
Rural Interstate (ODOT 202-1)
Soil Type
RfA – Lower Level Clay
Liquid Limit
5.472
6035
Plastic Index
5.222
3015
Passing No. 200
%5.872
9580
Design Steps
1. ODOT 203-2 - Group Index
14.5 ≈ 15
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-20
2. ODOT 203-3 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus
GI = 15
CBR = 4.25
MR= 1200 * 4.25 = 5100 psi
3. ODOT 202-1 - Traffic Factors
Directional Distribution = 100%
Lane Factor = 100%
B:C Ratio= 5:1 (closest approximation)
B Factor = 1.84
C Factor = .53
ODOT 302-1 - ESAL from B Trucks
10133.684.1*6
5*1*1*1*4
ODOT 302-1 - ESAL from C Trucks
1353.53.*6
1*1*1*1*4
ODOT 302-1 - Design ESAL
8030020*365*11 ESAL
4. ODOT 301-2 - Composite Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Kc = 380 pci
5. ODOT 301-3 - Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
K=120 pci
6. ODOT 302-2, 3 - Rigid Pavement Design Chart
E’c = 5000000 psi
S’c = 700 psi
J= 2.8
Cd= 1
ΔPSI = 1.7
Reliability = 90%
Use 5” Slab
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-21
Punching Shear - p.505 Design of Reinforced Concrete
Allowable Punching Shear
bwdcfVp '4
cfcS '9'
2
9
700'cf =6000 psi
2.111544*12*6000*4*75.Vp lb
Worst Case Shear
6000_1
_1000*
2*___5.__2
_30
kip
lb
axletireequivaxlerearaxlesrear
kip lb
Allowable Shear > Actual Shear; 5” Slab OK
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-24
C. Wash Bay Calculations9,10,11
Plow Trucks
29 snow events/yr 3 Days/snow event 87 event-days/yr
Winter Months 87 Snow event*day/yr 3 washes/snow day 10 trucks 2610 truck washes/year
Summer Months 8 months/year 4.33 weeks/month 1 wash/week 35 truck washes/year
Total 2645 truck washes/year
Pickup Trucks
Winter Months 87 Snow event*day/yr 3 trucks washed/shift 2 shift/day 522 pick up washes/year
Summer Months 278 non*event*day/yr 1/7 week/day 1 wash/week 6 pickups 40 pick up washes/year
Total 562 pick up washes/year
Total Current Cost
Hand Rinse
Plow Trucks 2645 truck washes/ yr 0.5 hr/wash 30 dollar/hr $39,669.60 dollar/yr
Pickup Trucks 562 pick up washes/yr 0.5 hr/wash 30 dollar/hr $8,425.71 dollar/yr
Offsite Washing
Plow Truck - Normal Event
87 incident/year 1/7 week/day 1 wash/week 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 10 trucks $8,389.29 dollar/year
Plow Truck – Non Snow Event
278 non-incident/year 0.033 month/day 1 wash/month 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 10 trucks $6,192.45 dollar/year
Pickup Trucks
87 incident/year 1/7 week/day 1 wash/week 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 6 pickups $5,033.57 dollar/year
Pickup Trucks
278 non-incident/year 0.033 month/day 1 wash/month 2.25 hours/wash 30 dollar/hr 6 pickups $3,715.47 dollar/year
Total $71,426.09 dollar/year
9 Crawford, Ryan. "Truck Wash." InterClean. E-mail to Mark Hall.26 Feb 2008.
10
University of Toledo ODOT Senior Design Group 1, "ODOT Highway Maintenance Facility Design." CIVE 4750 Senior Design Project: Fall 2007. 12
December 2007. University of Toledo College of Engineering: Department of Civil Engineering. 15 Feb 2008
<http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/civil/senior%20capstone%20reports/CIVE%204750%2020074%20ODOT%201%20Final%20Report.pdf>.
11
Schneiderbauer, Craig. "U. Toledo Senior Design Project." E-mail to Mark Hall.25 February 2008.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-25
InterClean – Yearly Washing Costs
*******ASSUME 1 FT/SEC WASH
Chemical
$2.36 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $6,234.30 dollar/year
$1.32 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year $741.38 dollar/year
Water
$0.00 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $0.00 dollar/year
$0.00 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year $0.00 dollar/year
Electricity
$0.05 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $128.68 dollar/year
$0.03 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year $14.28 dollar/year
Natural Gas
$0.06 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $158.68 dollar/year
$0.06 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year $33.70 dollar/year
Softener Salt
$0.01 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year $26.45 dollar/year
$0.01 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year $5.62 dollar/year
Total $7,343.08 dollar/year
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-26
Feasibility Analysis
Do Nothing
Total $71,426.09 dollar/yr $71,426.09 dollar/yr
InterClean System - Cost Effective
Total Wash Costs/ Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year
Investment $196,468.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $23,084.99 dollar/year
Building $30,000.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $3,525.00 dollar/year
Annual Operating and Mainenance $25,000.00 dollar/year $25,000.00 dollar/year
Total $58,953.07 dollar/year
InterClean System - Ideal
Total Wash Costs/Year $7,343.08 dollar/year $7,343.08 dollar/year
Investment $196,468.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $23,084.99 dollar/year
Building $70,000.00 lump sum 0.1175 (A/P,10%,20) $8,225.00 dollar/year
Annual Operating and Maintenance $25,000.00 dollar/year $25,000.00 dollar/year
Total $63,653.07 dollar/year
Water Consumption - InterClean Option
*********To Calculate Water Consumption Assume Water Cost of $.05 per gallon
Plow Trucks 20 gallon/dollar $4.96 dollar/wash 2645 truck washes/year 262384 gal/year
Pickup Trucks 20 gallon/dollar $2.84 dollar/wash 562 pick up washes/year 31921.6 gal/year
Water Consumption - InterClean Option
0.15 Water Use post-Recycling 39357.6 gal/year
0.15 Water Use post-Recycling 4788.24 gal/year
Total 44145.84 gal/year
Water Consumption - Hand Wash
Plow Trucks 2645 truck washes/ yr 250 gal/wash 661160 gal/yr
Pickup Trucks 562 pick up washes/year 100 gal/wash 56171 gal/yr
Total 717331 gal/yr
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-28
Interclean Wash Bay Costs – Pickup Trucks
Cost Effective Option
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-39
II. Building Design Material
A. Soil Bearing Capacity
Check the strength of the soil along the northern wall of the current main garage for addition of
a second garage as outlined in Option I.
Allowable bearing capacity = 3000 psf
With two footings, the stress block overlap within the soil cannot exceed 3000 psf. Therefore,
the load from each footing within the area must be ≤ 1500 psf.
A 2:1 slope for each stress block is assumed.
Strip footings are 20” in width
Using Table 6.4 in Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering, 2nd
Edition (Das, 2005), several
locations are checked to be less than this ratio
Location 1:
Slope is greater than assumed 2:1, and point is inside the stress block.
Location 2:
Slope is greater than assumed 2:1, and point is inside the stress block.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-40
Location 3:
Slope is greater than assumed 2:1, and point is outside the stress block.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-54
III. Water Management Design Material
A. Detailed Calculations
100 year storm calculations:
New Retention Pond
Overflow Depth Calculations:
Cross sectional area of pond at overflow depth:
Overflow depth:
ft
Adjusted Overflow depth:
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-55
Drainage Calculations:
Adjusted Annual Rain Volume:
Volume of Fluctuation Depth:
Number of Times to Drain Pond Annually:
Pond Volume Calculations:
Overflow Volume:
Permanent and Fluctuation Volume:
Total Volume:
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-56
Existing Pond:
Overflow Depth Calculations:
Cross sectional area of pond at overflow depth:
Overflow depth:
ft
Adjusted Overflow depth:
Drainage Calculations:
Adjusted Annual Rain Volume:
Volume of Fluctuation Depth:
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-57
Number of Times to Drain Pond Annually:
Pond Volume Calculations:
Overflow Volume:
Permanent and Fluctuation Volume:
Total Volume:
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-58
B. Table Calculations
C (coefficient) ft/day ( 5 in/day) Area (ft2) Q (ft
3/day)
0.9 0.42 348480 146362
New Retention Pond
Item Amount Units
Overflow Depth 4.92 ft
Cross section area of pond at over flow depth 29700 ft2
Length 180 ft
Width 165 ft
Slope of Pond Walls (Overflow Depth) 3 :1 Ratio
Slope of Pond Walls (Permanent/Fluctuation Depth) 2 :1 Ratio
Adjusted Overflow Depth for Slope of Walls 6.2 ft
Pond Permanent Level Depth 10 ft
Pond Fluctuation Depth 4 ft
Total Depth 20.2 ft
Average Annual Precipitation 35.1 in
Site Rainfall 37752 cy
Runoff Collected in Pond (Coefficient = .90) 33976.8 cy
Volume water used in wash 3050 cy
Volume Water evaporated (6 in/yr) 6453.3 cy
Brine Tank Consumption (50000 gal) 247.5 cy
Adjusted collection of pond 24266 cy
Drainage Volume with 4 ft Pond Depth Fluctuation 2392 cy
Times Pond drained per Year 11 /year
Overflow Volume 5426 cy
Permanent and Fluctuation Volume 5941 cy
Total Volume 11367 cy
TDS to go into Pond 1500 mg/l
Tons Salt Released (per month) 1.5 ton
Volume Required to Dilute Salt to < 1500mg/l 1187 cy
Incoming runoff Volume 2206 cy
Retrofit Existing Pond
Item Amount Units
Overflow Depth 4.3 ft
Cross section area of pond at over flow depth 34161 ft2
Length 193 ft
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-59
Width 177 ft *assumed value
Slope of Pond Walls (Overflow Depth) 3 :1 Ratio *assumed value
Slope of Pond Walls (Permanent/Fluctuation Depth) 3 :1 Ratio
Adjusted Overflow Depth for Slope of Walls 5.1 ft
Pond Permanent Level Depth 9.9 ft
Pond Fluctuation Depth 3 ft
Total Depth 18 ft
Average Annual Precipitation 35.1 in
Site Rainfall 37752 cy
Runoff Collected in Pond (Coefficient = .90) 33976.8 cy
Volume water used in wash 3050 cy
Volume Water evaporated (6 in/yr) 6453.3 cy
Brine Tank Consumption (50000 gal) 247.5 cy
Adjusted collection of pond 24266 cy
Drainage Volume with 3 ft Pond Depth Fluctuation 2342 cy
Times Pond drained per Year 11 /year
Overflow Volume 5428 cy
Permanent and Fluctuation Volume 6365 cy
Total Volume 11793 cy
TDS to go into Pond 1500 mg/l
Tons Salt Released (per month) 1.5 ton
Volume Required to Dilute Salt to < 1500mg/l 1187 cy
Incoming runoff Volume 2206 cy
No need to resize current collection pond to convert it to a retention pond. Need to add an out
flow pipe at a depth of 5.1 feet.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-60
C. Feasibility Analysis
Drinking Water
Intital Cost Maintenance
Cost/year 5 Year
Cost/person/day
Kinetico $1,600 $100 $0.058
Cooler Rental
Cost/Month Refill
Cost/Jug 5 Year
Cost/person/day
Culligan Water $11 $6 $0.620
Kinetico has an initial cost of $1600 for one faucet that runs its water through a carbon filtering system that removes aesthetics such as taste and odor from the drinking water.
After the initial investment, the only maintenance cost is changing the filter approximately 4 times per year at a charge of $25 per filter change.
Culligan water requires a cooler which rents at $11 dollars per month and a water jug of 2.5 gallons cost $6.
The analysis uses an reserved average daily consumption of 4 cups (32 fl.oz.) of water per day.
Both cost estimates base their values off 20 people consuming water per day.
The price of a 32floz bottle of water at a gas station is approximately $1.50.
The following pictures are for the Kinetico system.
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-63
IV. Estimation Tables
A. Option I Reference Item Quantity Unit $ / Unit Total Cost
244 Foundations 112 LF $18.30 $2,049.60
246 Dampproffing 112 LF $4.24 $474.88
248 Excavation 1830 SF $0.79 $1,445.70
X Demo Walls - 2L, 1 Op. (1WK) 1 WKS $3,000.00 $3,000.00
X Dumpster 1 EA $350.00 $350.00
X Equipment 1 WK $1,000.00 $1,000.00
247 Slab on Grade 1830 SF $4.45 $8,143.50
X Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00
175 Roof Construction 1830 SF $16.31 $29,847.30
331 Gutters (Al, Enameled) 91 LF $6.52 $593.32
331 Downspouts 18 LF $4.49 $80.82
292 Exterior Walls (10' High) 1120 SF $11.88 $13,305.60
292 Interior Walls (10' High) 1400 SF $7.24 $10,136.00
175 Windows 11 EA $630.00 $6,930.00
324 Exterior Doors 2 EA $1,458.00 $2,916.00
X Door Stoops - 4' x 4' (2) 32 SF $35.00 $1,120.00
175 Interior Doors 10 EA $815.00 $8,150.00
349 Wall Finishes (8' High) 4032 SF $1.50 $6,048.00
351 Floor Finishes (Epoxy) 2715 SF $6.81 $18,489.15
351 Floor Finishes (Carpet) 1360 SF $4.30 $5,848.00
355 Ceiling Finishes (Acoustical) 1830 SF $2.68 $4,904.40
175 Plumbing Fixures (includes showers) 3600 SF $2.71 $9,756.00
Internet Lockers 25 EA $350.00 $8,750.00
175 HVAC 1830 SF $18.80 $34,404.00
175 Electrical 1830 SF $22.80 $41,724.00
$221,296.27
$292,111.08additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Office Bldg Total
Office Building --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Bldg
244 Foundations 444 LF $33.15 $14,718.60
245 Dampproffing 444 LF $4.24 $1,882.56
248 Excavation 8840 SF $0.24 $2,121.60
249 4" Sidewalk (5ft wide) 850 SF $4.50 $3,825.00
247 Slab on Grade 8840 SF $5.48 $48,443.20
R/L Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00
225 Roof Construction 8840 SF $10.50 $92,820.00
331 Gutters (Al, Enameled) 170 LF $6.52 $1,108.40
331 Downspouts 9 LF $4.49 $40.41
292 Exterior Walls (20' High) 8880 SF $11.88 $105,494.40
225 OH Doors 2 EA $2,436.00 $4,872.00
349 Wall Finishes 17760 SF $1.50 $26,640.00
225 Floor Finishes - Epoxy 8840 SF $6.81 $60,200.40
225 Heating and Ventilation 8840 SF $4.88 $43,139.20
225 Electrical 8840 SF $7.11 $62,852.40
$469,988.17
$620,384.38additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Garage Total
Garage Addition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garage
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-64
Quote InterClean Wash Bay 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Quote Prefabricated Building 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000.00
65 Slab on Grade 50 CY $21.00 $1,053.24
41 Aggregate 80 CY $25.50 $2,046.30
523 Soil Stripping 130 CY $1.08 $140.83
$233,240.37
$307,877.29
Quote Building Relocation 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000.00
65 Slab on Grade 133 CY $21.00 $2,800.00
41 Aggregate 178 CY $25.50 $4,533.33
523 Soil Stripping 311 CY $3.32 $1,032.89
$38,366.22
$50,643.41
Quote Investment 1 EA $137,000.00 $137,000.00
Quote Bollards 1 EA $800.00 $800.00
Quote Swing Doors 1 EA $2,300.00 $2,300.00
Quote Linseed Oil - Building and Doors 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500.00
Quote 6" Concrete Floor 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00
$158,600.00
$209,352.00Salt Dome Total
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
Wash Bay
Wash Bay Total
Storage Sheds ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Sheds
Wash Bay --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Storage Sheds Total
Salt Dome---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Dome
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-65
ODOT - 202 Ashpalt Excavation 11083 SY $15.00 $166,237.83
ODOT - 202 Base Excavation 11083 SY $5.50 $60,953.87
ODOT - 304 Aggregate 369 CY $25.00 $9,219.65
ODOT - 301 Intermediate Course 184 CY $100.00 $18,439.31
ODOT - 448 Type 2 Intermediate Course 92 CY $110.00 $10,141.62
ODOT - 448 Type 1 Top Course 61 CY $118.00 $7,252.79
$272,245.08
$359,363.50
ODOT - 202 Ashpalt Excavation 2213 SY $15.00 $33,191.42
ODOT - 202 Base Excavation 2213 SY $5.50 $12,170.19
ODOT - 304 Aggregate 1847 CY $25.00 $46,177.18
ODOT - 302 Intermediate Course 1231 CY $90.00 $110,825.22
ODOT - 446 Type 2 Intermediate Course 462 CY $78.00 $36,018.20
ODOT - 446 Type 1H Top Course 462 CY $95.00 $43,868.32
$282,250.52
$372,570.68
RSM 575 12" Concrete Storm Pipe 1025 LF $23.00 $23,575.00
RSM 578 Catch Basin (Heavy Traffic 36" x 36") 5 EA $1,425.00 $7,125.00
RSM 571 Water Line to Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20
RSM 571 Water Line from Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20
Oil/Grit Seperator (HE S1-500) 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00
RSM 575 New Septic Tank (1000 GPD)2
1 EA $900.00 $900.00
$82,238.40
$108,554.69
Parking Area Asphalt Design----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking Area Asphalt
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Parking Area Total
Heavy Duty Asphalt Design-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Duty Asphalt
Heavy Duty Total
Water Management----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Management
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Water Management Total
RSM Excavating 11,367 CY $4.25 $48,309.75
RSM Compaction (6"Lifts, 2' Thick) 580 CY $15.00 $8,700.00
RSM 30 mil PVC Liner 31,200 SF $1.12 $34,944.00
$91,953.75
$121,378.95
$2,442,235.98Grand Total
New Retention Pond--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention Pond
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Retention Pond Total
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-66
B. Option II
X Demo Walls - 2L, 1 Op. (1 WK) 1 WKS $3,000.00 $3,000.00
X Demo Mechanics - 2L, 1 Op. (1WK) 1 WKS $3,000.00 $3,000.00
X Dumpster 5 EA $350.00 $1,750.00
X Equipment 2 WKS $1,000.00 $2,000.00
X Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00
X Exterior Walls 504 SF $11.88 $5,987.52
292 Interior Walls (10' High) 1680 SF $7.24 $12,163.20
175 Windows 4 EA $630.00 $2,520.00
324 Exterior Man Doors 1 EA $1,458.00 $1,458.00
X Door Stoops - 4' x 4' (2) 16 SF $35.00 $560.00
175 Interior Doors 11 EA $815.00 $8,965.00
349 Wall Finishes 3495 SF $1.50 $5,242.50
351 Floor Finishes (Epoxy) 2450 SF $6.81 $16,684.50
351 Floor Finishes (Carpet) 1605 SF $4.30 $6,901.50
355 Ceiling Finishes (Acoustical) 2535 SF $2.68 $6,793.80
175 Plumbing Fixures (includes showers) 3600 SF $2.71 $9,756.00
Internet Lockers 25 EA $350.00 $8,750.00
175 HVAC 0 SF $18.80 $0.00
175 Electrical 0 SF $22.80 $0.00
$85,782.02
$113,232.27
Office Building ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Office Bldg Total
Office Bldg
X Garage Demolition - 2L, 1 Op. (2 WK) 2 WKS $3,000.00 $6,000.00
X Dumpster 8 EA $350.00 $2,800.00
X Equipment 2 WK $1,000.00 $2,000.00
244 Foundations 274 LF $33.15 $9,083.10
245 Dampproffing 274 LF $4.24 $1,161.76
248 Excavation 8840 SF $0.24 $2,121.60
292 Slab on Grade 17680 SF $5.48 $96,886.40
X Misc. Metals 1830 SF $1.00 $1,830.00
225 Roof Construction 17680 SF $10.50 $185,640.00
331 Gutters (Al, Enameled) 170 LF $6.52 $1,108.40
331 Downspouts 9 LF $4.49 $40.41
292 Exterior Walls (20' High) 5480 SF $11.88 $65,102.40
324 Exterior Man Doors 2 EA $1,458.00 $2,916.00
225 OH Doors 2 EA $2,436.00 $4,872.00
349 Wall Finishes 10960 SF $1.50 $16,440.00
225 Floor Finishes - Epoxy 17680 SF $6.81 $120,400.80
225 Heating and Ventilation 17680 SF $4.88 $86,278.40
225 Electrical 17680 SF $7.11 $125,704.80
$719,586.07
$949,853.61
Garage
Garage Addition ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Garage Total
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-67
Quote InterClean Wash Bay 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Quote Prefabricated Building 1 EA $70,000.00 $70,000.00
65 Slab on Grade 35 CY $21.00 $729.17
41 Aggregate 56 CY $25.50 $1,416.67
523 Soil Stripping 90 CY $1.08 $97.50
$272,243.33
$359,361.20
Quote Prefabricated Building 1 EA $65,000.00 $65,000.00
65 Slab on Grade 144 CY $21.00 $3,034.11
41 Aggregate 193 CY $25.50 $4,912.37
523 Soil Stripping 337 CY $3.32 $1,119.25
$74,065.73
$97,766.77
Quote Investment 1 EA $137,000.00 $137,000.00
Quote Bollards 1 EA $800.00 $800.00
Quote Swing Doors 1 EA $2,300.00 $2,300.00
Quote Linseed Oil - Building and Doors 1 EA $6,500.00 $6,500.00
Quote 6" Concrete Floor 1 EA $12,000.00 $12,000.00
$158,600.00
$209,352.00
Wash Bay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Dome-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Dome
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Salt Dome Total
Storage Sheds --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage Sheds
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
Wash Bay
Wash Bay Totaladditional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
Storage Sheds Total
65 Slab on Grade 94 CY $21.00 $1,978.47
41 Aggregate 151 CY $25.50 $3,843.89
523 Soil Stripping 245 CY $3.32 $813.25
$6,635.61
$8,759.00
ODOT - 202 Ashpalt Excavation 2213 SY $15.00 $33,191.42
ODOT - 202 Base Excavation 2213 SY $5.50 $12,170.19
ODOT - 304 Aggregate 1943 CY $25.00 $48,579.17
ODOT - 302 Intermediate Course 1295 CY $90.00 $116,590.00
ODOT - 446 Type 2 Intermediate Course 486 CY $78.00 $37,891.75
ODOT - 446 Type 1H Top Course 486 CY $95.00 $46,150.21
$294,572.73
$388,836.00
Heavy Duty Asphalt Design---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy Duty Asphalt
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Heavy Duty Total
Mechanics Garage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanics Garage Totaladditional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
Mechanics Garage
ODOT - 202 Ashpalt Excavation 11083 SY $15.00 $166,237.83
ODOT - 202 Base Excavation 11083 SY $5.50 $60,953.87
ODOT - 304 Aggregate 287 CY $25.00 $7,162.96
ODOT - 301 Intermediate Course 143 CY $100.00 $14,325.93
ODOT - 448 Type 2 Intermediate Course 72 CY $110.00 $7,879.26
ODOT - 448 Type 1 Top Course 48 CY $118.00 $5,634.86
$262,194.72
$346,097.03
Parking Area Asphalt
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Parking Area Total
Parking Area Asphalt Design-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-68
RSM 575 12" Concrete Storm Pipe 1010 LF $23.00 $23,230.00
RSM 578 Catch Basin (Heavy Traffic 36" x 36") 6 EA $1,425.00 $8,550.00
RSM 571 Additional Water Line to Building (1.5" PVC) 180 LF $1.45 $261.00
RSM 571 Water Line to Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20
RSM 571 Water Line from Wash Bay (2" PVC) 140 LF $2.28 $319.20
Oil/Grit Seperator (HE S1-500) 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00
TDC 6" Well (Incl. casing, pump, etc.) 1 EA $13,500.00 $13,500.00
RSM 575 New Septic Tank (1000 GPD)2
1 EA $900.00 $900.00
$97,079.40
$128,144.81
RSM Compaction (6"Lifts, 2' Thick) 670 CY $15.00 $10,050.00
RSM 30 mil PVC Liner 35,750 SF $1.12 $40,040.00
$50,090.00
$66,118.80
$2,667,521.48
Water Managment---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Management
2Needed if old septic tank will not handle at least 800 GPD
Existing Pond Retrofit----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Management
additional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees Water Management Total
Grand Total
Water Management Totaladditional 7% Architect fees, 25% Contractor Fees
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-76
VI. Statement of Qualifications ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABE Z. AHMED Abe Ahmed is a senior pursue a degree in Civil Engineering. Abe is planning on
graduating in August of 08 and has plans on starting his career in the Construction
Industry. Abe currently is a Rudolph Libbe employee with experience as a
Project Manager/Estimator. This experience has given Abe a strong construction
background and an understanding of proper business practice. Abe is also a
member of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN M. DISANTO Evan DiSanto is currently a senior in Civil Engineering. He plans to graduate in
August of 2008. After completing three semesters of co-op with Terrace
Construction in Cleveland, the field of construction became a great interest to
him. He is from Cleveland and hopes to find a job close to home. Evan is excited
about graduating and has had a great experience so far at the University of
Toledo. He has learned so much from his professors and has made many great
friends during his time here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK J. HALL Mark is a senior majoring in Civil Engineering. He anticipates graduating in May
of 2008. Mark is involved with Chi Epsilon and Golden Key. He also serves on
the Civil Engineering Student Advisory Board. Mark has experience in
construction staking, GPS/GIS Systems, AUTOCAD and has also worked on Cost
Segregation Studies in the past. Mark is interested in various aspects of
Transportation Engineering, Planning Construction, and Construction
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATT P. LONGFIELD Matt Longfield is a senior in civil engineering at the University of Toledo. Matt
has broad experience within civil engineering through co-op experience with for
the City of Oregon during his last two years of college. He has been exposed to a
variety of areas within civil engineering. Matt has worked on all stages of
projects including design, approval, bidding, and construction. During his
academic career, Matt has spent time participating in load testing on the Veteran’s
Glass City Skyway Bridge and researching with Dr. Douglas Nims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-77
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHET D. MANZ Chet is a senior with a major in Civil Engineering and a minor in Business. Chet
is planning to graduate with his bachelor’s degree in August of 2008. From co-op
and personal experiences Chet has become interested in the construction industry.
Project management, scheduling and estimating are among the training
experiences the he has been a part of. Chet is very excited to get out into the
work force and put his classroom knowledge to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN R. PERRY Ben is a senior Civil Engineering student at the University of Toledo and
anticipates graduating in May of 2008. Through his college career he has
completed co-op positions with construction management companies The Lathrop
Co. and Dugan and Meyers Construction Co. He also has worked, and currently
works with Dr. Chou (Transportation Engineering Professor) on his Pavement
Management Information Systems for Municipalities projects. Through his
course work and co-op position experiences Ben is familiar with many of the
Microsoft programs, Auto-CAD, GPS/GIS systems, Rhino-3D Graphics, as well
as some aspects of Pro-Log and Scheduling programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM R. SZABO
Adam Szabo is completing a Bachelors of Science degree in civil engineering
along with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Toledo.
The University Toledo has a reputable and ABET accredited engineering
program. During his time at the University of Toledo Adam has received training
in the fields necessary to become proficient in a civil engineering work
environment. This training not only included technical expertise, but also
incorporated skill sets such as communication, teamwork, and ethical
considerations. His co-ops at the Ohio Department of Transportation were also of
great benefit, giving him real world experience and education outside the
classroom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-86
VII. Project Grading Guidelines
CIVE 4750 Spring 2008 C. Gruden, P.E.
Project Grading Guidelines
Overall
Is it well presented, well thought out report that we are pleased to present to the client and
the public?
Content
Is information necessary to reasonably estimate the cost provided?
Is content technically accurate?
Is content relevant and timely?
Are the objectives in the scope met?
o ODOT: The Client has specific economic goals. Are they met?
Is it clear the client needs were understood and addressed?
Is the technical level appropriate?
Is the engineering analysis sound and clearly presented?
Are claims, conclusions and recommendations supported by the evidence and analysis?
Is the report free of gaps, foggy areas, and needless details?
Are constraints clearly identified and met?
Is the project economically feasible?
Is the economic analysis sound?
Does everything fit into a cohesive whole (ODOT: is it functional?, CR: Is the theme
consistent and marketable? Is the infrastructure appropriate?)
Drawings
Are all drawings necessary for clarity provided?
Are drawings accurate?
Are drawings well presented?
Engineering Calculations (Quantitative Analysis)
Used appropriately?
Assumptions clear?
Results clearly presented?
Specifications
Are clear specifications sufficient to provide a reasonable cost provided or referenced?
Are specifications accurate and appropriate?
Are specifications clearly presented?
ODOT Henry County Garage Recommended Renovations
App-87
Report Organization
Is the structure of the document visible at a glance?
Is there a clear line of reasoning that emphasizes what is important?
Is the abstract brief and descriptive?
Is everything easy to follow?
Is the material divided into easily digestible parts?
Executive Summary
Clear brief description?
Able to stand alone?
Good graphic design? Visually attractive? Some photos or figures?
Recommendations clear?
Report Visuals
Are graphs, charts, and photographs used where appropriate?
Are visuals clearly labeled?
Do visuals advance the argument being made?
Report Style
Is each sentence understandable when it is read?
Are common rules of grammar and spelling followed?
Has it clearly been proofread to prevent careless errors?
Is the tone appropriate for the audience?
Report Design
Is the graphic design need, attractive and inviting?
Are there adequate aids to navigation (headers, dividers, typestyles)?
Ethical, Legal, and Community considerations
Does the report indicate sound ethical judgement?
Are community needs and standards respected?
Have the environment requirements been met?
Reference: These guidelines are developed from the list on page 342 of the technical writing text
by Lannon