Guia Planos Muro PDF

Geotechnical Exploration – Revised
Van Blaricum Road Improvements

Hamilton County, Ohio
S&ME Project No. 1178-17-011
PREPARED FOR:
Hamilton County Engineer’s Office
138 E. Court Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
PREPARED BY:
S&ME, Inc.
862 E Crescentville Road
March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018
Hamilton County Engineer’s Office

138 E. Court Street
Attention: Mr. Todd Gadbury, P.E.
Reference: Geotechnical Exploration - Revised

Dear Mr. Gadbury:
In accordance with our proposal dated July 21, 2017, which was formally authorized on July 25, 2017, S&ME, Inc.
(S&ME) has completed a Subgrade and Subsurface Exploration for the planned culvert replacement and roadway
improvement project near Addyston, Hamilton County, Ohio. The location is shown on the Vicinity Map submitted
as Plate 1 in Appendix I of this report. This final report contains the information obtained from the borings and
laboratory testing as well as analyses and recommendations for design, support and construction of the roadway
and culvert replacement.
We appreciate having been given the opportunity to be of service on this report. Please do not hesitate to contact
our office if you have any questions concerning our report.
Respectfully submitted,
S&ME, Inc.
Andrew S. Dingler, E.I. Benjamin C. Dusina, P.E.

Staff Professional Senior Engineer
Submitted: 1 electronic to Mr. Todd Gadbury, P.E. (Todd.Gadbury@Hamilton-Co.Org)

1 electronic copy to Mr. Nick Yeretzian, P.E. (Nick.Yeretzian@kleingers.com)
S&ME, Inc. | 862 E Crescentville Road | Cincinnati, OH 45246 | p 513.771.8471 | www.smeinc.com

Geotechnical Exploration - Revised
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................1
2.0 Geology and Observations of the Project ....................................................................1

2.1 Regional Geology ...........................................................................................................................1
2.2 Site Reconnaissance........................................................................................................................1
3.0 Exploration and Laboratory Program............................................................................2

3.1 Available Information....................................................................................................................2
3.2 Field Exploration Program............................................................................................................2
3.3 Laboratory Testing Program.........................................................................................................3
4.0 Exploration Findings ........................................................................................................4

4.1 General Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................4
4.2 Groundwater Observations ..........................................................................................................4
5.0 Analyses and Recommendations ...................................................................................5

5.1 Subgrade Recommendations ........................................................................................................5
5.1.1 Subgrade Support Parameters...........................................................................................................5
5.1.2 Unsuitable Subgrade Materials ........................................................................................................5
5.1.3 Subgrade Remediation Considerations .............................................................................................6
5.2 Earthen Embankment Construction ............................................................................................6
5.2.1 Embankment Foundation Preparation..............................................................................................6
5.2.2 Borrow Requirements and Compaction Criteria...............................................................................7
5.2.3 Compaction/Moisture Conditioning Concerns.................................................................................8
5.2.4 Subgrade Preparation........................................................................................................................8
5.3 Culvert Replacement Recommendations....................................................................................8
5.3.1 General Discussion ...........................................................................................................................8
5.3.2 Site Preparation.................................................................................................................................8
5.3.3 Culvert Bearing Resistance...............................................................................................................8
5.3.4 Eccentricity (Overturning)...............................................................................................................9
5.3.5 Sliding Resistance ...........................................................................................................................10
March 30, 2018 ii

5.3.6 Bedrock Excavation Considerations ................................................................................................10

5.3.7 Scour Countermeasures ..................................................................................................................11
5.3.8 Lateral Earth Pressures ...................................................................................................................11
5.4 Retaining Wall Design .................................................................................................................12
6.0 Follow-up Services..........................................................................................................12
7.0 Final Considerations ......................................................................................................13
List of Tables
Table 3-1 – Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing................................................................3
Table 4-1 – Summary of Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................4
Table 5-1 – Recommended Bearing Capacities .....................................................................................................9
Table 5-2 – Soldier Pile Retaining Wall Summary..............................................................................................12
Appendices
Appendix I – Additional Figures
Appendix II – Boring Logs
Appendix III – Laboratory Testing Results
Appendix IV – Site Reconnaissance Photographs
Appendix V – Retaining Wall Design Drawings
March 30, 2018 iii

1.0 Introduction
Based on discussion with Hamilton County Engineer’s Office (HCEO) and information received from The Kleingers
Group, Inc. (Kleingers), S&ME understands that a large sinkhole was created by the partial collapse of a culvert
below a section of Van Blaricum Road in Hamilton County, Ohio. The sinkhole has caused the HCEO to close this
portion of Van Blaricum Road. S&ME performed a site reconnaissance on July 18, 2017 to observe the current
conditions. The existing sinkhole has encroached into the roadway pavement. Several large erosion features were
observed, and pavement cracking and overturned trees (indicating possible slope instability) was also observed.
S&ME met with Mr. Nick Yeretzian, P.E. with Kleingers on July 19, 2017 to discuss the proposed repair options and
scope of geotechnical services needed. Based on this discussion, we understand that the existing arch structure
below Van Blaricum Road will be replaced with a new 4-sided box culvert with wing walls, and existing pipe culvert
in the channel west of Van Blaricum Road will be removed and the natural stream will be restored. The roadway
alignment will also be shifted to the west to position it within the existing County right-of-way. Since Kleingers’
65 percent design submittal to Hamilton County, S&ME was asked to evaluate and design a drilled shaft and
cantilever retaining wall along the western portion of the new roadway.
We understand that the existing pavement for this section will be replaced and the sinkhole backfilled.
2.0 Geology and Observations of the Project
2.1 Regional Geology

According to available sources, the project is located within the Outer Bluegrass physiographic region of the state.
The overburden soils in the area consist predominantly of glacially deposited ground moraine, and silt-loam
colluvium consisting of silt, clay, sand and gravel, and roadway embankment fill. These overburden soils overlie
interbedded shale and limestone from the Waynesville Formation and Arnheim formation undivided of the
Ordovician age. The bedrock consists of approximately 60 to 70 percent shale and ranges in thickness from 140
to 220 feet thick.
A review of the ODNR “Ohio Karst Areas” map and the “Abandoned Underground Mines of Ohio” map reveal that
no mapped karst deposits or mapped abandoned underground mines are present in the vicinity of the site.
2.2 Site Reconnaissance

A site reconnaissance visit was made by S&ME personnel on July 18, 2017 to field locate and mark the borings. A
secondary sinkhole north of the primary sinkhole along the line of the culvert pipe between the stream running
along Van Blaricum Road to the primary sinkhole was observed. Slight pavement cracking in the shoulder
adjacent to the stream was observed. Erosion features in the slope west of Van Blaricum Road and within the
asphalt of the roadway were observed. Photographs of the site conditions prior to drilling are provided in
Appendix IV to this report. A photograph of the sinkhole showing the original arch structure below Van Blaricum
Road is provided on the following page. Additional site photographs are included in Appendix IV to this report.
March 30, 2018 1

Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'47.22"N; 84°40'46.47"W / Looking East
Remarks Sinkhole adjacent to roadway
3.0 Exploration and Laboratory Program
3.1 Available Information

S&ME performed a search of the ODOT Office of Geotechnical Engineering’s on-line Geotechnical Document
Management System database and the ODOT Office of Structural Engineering on-line database for historic
records or data that might be incorporated into the current exploration program. No additional nearby borings
were found.
3.2 Field Exploration Program

On July 31 and August 1, 2017, six (6) borings designated as B-001 through B-006 were performed to investigate
the existing soils below the proposed box culvert and roadway improvements. The borings were located within
the right-of-way of Van Blaricum road and to the west along the existing pipe culvert and existing stream.
Borings were advanced to depths ranging from 10.0 feet to 25.5 feet. The soil boring locations were staked by
S&ME using a hand held GPS unit (sub-meter horizontal accuracy). The ground surface elevations at the boring
locations were estimated from topographic information provided by Kleingers.
March 30, 2018 2

The borings were performed with a CME 55 rubber track mounted drill rig using a 31/4-inch O.D. hollow
continuous flight auger to advance the borings between sampling attempts. Disturbed, but representative soil
samples were attempted continuously to a depth of 20.5 feet beneath the existing pavement subgrade at boring
B-003, and at regular intervals in the other borings. This sampling was done by lowering a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel
sampler to the bottom of the boring within the auger, and then driving the sampler into the soil with blows from
a 140-pound hammer freely falling 30 inches (ASTM D1586 - Standard Penetration Test). As required by the
ODOT SGE, the hammer system on the drilling rig has been calibrated in accordance with ASTM D 4633 to
determine the drill rod energy ratio. SPT samples were examined immediately after recovery and representative
portions were preserved in airtight glass jars. Upon reaching auger refusal, 5 feet of rock core was drilled at
borings B-001 through B-004. Upon completion of each boring, the boreholes were backfilled with cuttings. A
Plan of Borings showing the approximate locations of the borings is included as Plate 2 of Appendix II.
In the field, experienced personnel from S&ME supervised the drilling as well as performing the following specific
duties: preserved all recovered samples; prepared a log of each boring; made seepage and groundwater
observations; obtained hand-penetrometer measurements in soil samples exhibiting cohesion; and, contacted the
Project Engineer so that the program of explorations could be modified, if necessary, because of unanticipated
conditions. All samples were transported to the laboratory of S&ME for further identification and testing.
3.3 Laboratory Testing Program

In the laboratory, soil samples were visually identified and tested for natural moisture content. Grain-size
analyses, liquid/plastic limit determinations, and unconfined compressive strength testing was performed on
selected representative soil specimens. Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on two (2)
representative bedrock samples. The results of these tests permit an evaluation of the strength, and
compressibility characteristics of the soils and bedrock encountered at this site by comparison with similar soils
for which these characteristics have been previously determined. The results of some of the laboratory index and
strength tests are shown on individual boring logs as well.
Based on the results of the laboratory testing program, soil descriptions contained on the field logs were modified,
as necessary, and laboratory-corrected boring logs are included as Plates 3 through 8 in Appendix II. Shown on
these logs are: descriptions of the soil stratigraphy encountered; depths from which samples were preserved;
sampling efforts (blow-counts) required to obtain the specimens in the borings; calculated N60 value; seepage and
groundwater observations; and, values of hand-penetrometer measurements made in soil samples exhibiting
cohesion. For your reference, hand-penetrometer values are roughly equivalent to the unconfined compressive
strength of the cohesive fraction of the soil sample.
Table 3-1 – Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing

Unconfined Compressive
Boring Number Sample Depth (ft) Soil/Bedrock Description
Strength (ksf)
B-001 21.5 – 22.2 Shale with clay seams 9.67
B-002 18.1 – 18.8 Shale with limestone 78.8
B-003 7.0 - 7.5 SILTY CLAY (A-6b) 3.00
B-004 18.0 – 18.7 Shale with limestone 73.6
March 30, 2018 3

Soils have been classified in general accordance with Section 603 of the ODOT Specification for Geotechnical
Engineering (SGE), and described in general accordance with Section 602. An explanation of the symbols and
terms used on the boring logs, and definitions of the special adjectives used to denote the minor soil
components and rock hardness, are presented on Plates 1 and 2 of Appendix II. Group indices determined from
the results of the laboratory testing program are also provided on the boring logs.
4.0 Exploration Findings
4.1 General Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the borings alongside Van Blaricum Road may be described as
follows:
♦ Existing fill consisting of soft to hard SILTY CLAY (A-6b), SANDY SILT (A-4a), and CLAY (A-7-6) was
encountered in each boring. A layer of soft SILTY CLAY was encountered in boring B-001. Medium-
dense to dense GRAVEL SAND AND SILT (A-2-6) was encountered in borings B-002 and B-004.
♦ Natural overburden soils were encountered in borings B-001, B-005 and B-006. The natural
overburden soils generally consisted of very-stiff SILTY CLAY (A-6b) and SILT AND CLAY (A-6a).
♦ Cobbles were encountered in several borings.
♦ Severely weathered bedrock was encountered in each of the borings.
♦ Bedrock encountered consisted INTERBEDDED SHALE AND LIMESTONE.
Table 4-1 below summarizes the subsurface conditions encountered.
Table 4-1 – Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Depth of Depth to top
Boring Depth of Seepage Groundwater at
Existing Fill of Bedrock
Number Encountered (ft) Completion (ft)
(ft) (ft)
B-001 Not Encountered Dry Prior to Coring 16.7 19.0
B-002 16.0 Dry Prior to Coring 11.75 13.9
B-005 8.5 Dry 8.0 11.5
B-006 Not Encountered Dry 8.0 8
For additional details, please refer to the boring logs included in Appendix A of this report.
4.2 Groundwater Observations

Seepage was encountered in B-002 and B-005 at approximately 16 and 8.5 feet, respectively. Groundwater
measurements were made in borings B-005 and B-006 at the completion of drilling, however no groundwater was
March 30, 2018 4

measured at that time. Groundwater observations were not possible in B-001 through B-004 as water was used for
drill fluid to obtain the bedrock core.
5.0 Analyses and Recommendations
5.1 Subgrade Recommendations
5.1.1 Subgrade Support Parameters

Based on the profile information provided by Kleingers, the following average CBR, based on laboratory index
testing is recommended.
CBR: 4.0%
Based on this average value, and Section 203.1 of the current ODOT Pavement Design Manual, the following value
of Resilient Modulus (MR) may be used during new pavement section design for this project.
MR: 4,800 psi
In the event that a global chemical subgrade stabilization program, performed in accordance with ODOT
Construction and Materials Specifications (CMS) Item 206 and ODOT Supplement 1120, is incorporated into this
project beneath all new pavement, Section 203.4.1 of the current ODOT Pavement Design and Rehabilitation
Manual permits the Resilient Modulus (MR-GCS) value used during design of the flexible pavement to be increased
by a factor of 1.36.
Based on the lab test results, S&ME recommends that a new flexible pavement constructed on a subgrade which
is globally chemically stabilized may be designed using the following improved subgrade modulus:
Resilient Modulus-Global Chemical Stabilization (MR-GCS): 6,530 psi
These subgrade support values may be used during pavement design for this project provided that the entire
proposed pavement subgrade is prepared in strict accordance with ODOT Item 204, and that the borrow soil
placed within 3 feet of the final subgrade level of a new fill embankment is capable of providing average subgrade
support parameters which meet or exceed the above values. This subgrade evaluation also assumes that the
subgrade for the new roadways is composed of the materials encountered in the borings. If, at the time of
construction, it is determined that the subgrade consists of materials different than those encountered in the
borings, the pavement design subgrade criteria should be reviewed and, if necessary, modified.
5.1.2 Unsuitable Subgrade Materials

None of the borings performed during this exploration encountered soil within 3 feet of the proposed subgrade
level which ODOT GB1 considers to be unsuitable either by classification, or which has a Liquid Limit value in
excess of 65%. Relatively shallow bedrock was observed in the upslope drainage ditch.
March 30, 2018 5

If deposits of unsuitable soils such as silt or organic materials are encountered during any earthwork or
proofrolling operations, S&ME recommends that test pits or hand sampling methods be used to further
investigate and delineate the extent of these deposits. Any silt deposits present within 3 feet of the proposed
subgrade level should be removed (ODOT Item 203.03.A).
Because of the variable nature of the wide spacing of the explorations, it is possible that other areas of unsuitable
organic or silt materials that were not encountered in any of the borings may be encountered during earthwork
and proofrolling operations. Visual observation of the proofrolling procedures by the Geotechnical Engineer of
Record may potentially result in a reduction of overexcavation of unsuitable soils in these areas. Additionally,
S&ME recommends that construction traffic be minimized or restricted once the planned soil subgrade level has
been exposed or attained.
5.1.3 Subgrade Remediation Considerations

Because of the moisture sensitive nature of the cohesive soils (A-4a, A6a, A-6b and A-7-6) encountered in the
borings, S&ME recommends construction traffic be minimized once the required subgrade level has been
attained. Construction traffic resulting from cyclical haul routes or limited access points may increase the quantity
of soil identified by proofrolling as requiring removal, particularly during periods of moist weather.
Following removal and replacement of any unsuitable soils with properly compacted embankment fill materials,
the subgrade should be proofrolled in accordance with ODOT Item 204.06, and Section 204 of the current ODOT
Construction Administration Manual of Procedures to verify that the desired stability is achieved. We recommend
placing ODOT Item 712.09 Geotextile Fabric Type D at the bottom of the undercuts, and ODOT Item 204 Granular
Material is to be used to backfill the overexcavations. S&ME recommends that ODOT Item 204 Granular Material,
Type B or C be utilized. It should also be noted, however, that ODOT GB1 specifies that Item 204 Granular
Material Type B without a geotextile fabric be utilized to backfill undercuts performed in the vicinity of any
underdrains.
It is also recommended that overexcavated subgrade areas backfilled with granular soil be drained to an
underdrain, catch basin, or pipe. Additionally, if “excavate and replace” is to be used for remediation, Plan Note
G121 from the ODOT L&D Manual, Vol. 3, should be used in the General Notes. If chemical stabilization is
selected, additional pay items to be included in the plans are provided in Section G of ODOT Geotechnical Bulletin
GB1.
5.2 Earthen Embankment Construction

Profile information provided indicates the majority of the proposed roadway will be constructed at elevations
approximately the same as the existing roadway elevations. However additional embankment fill will be required
to fill in around the new culvert and behind the planned retaining structure.
5.2.1 Embankment Foundation Preparation

Prior to commencing earthwork operations, it is recommended that all sod, topsoil, vegetation, and other
miscellaneous materials be completely removed from the entire footprint of the entire proposed roadway
embankments. Following the removal of these materials, it is recommended that the entire exposed subgrade
March 30, 2018 6

and embankment foundation surface be examined by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their designated
representative to identify any weak, wet, organic, or otherwise unsuitable soils that were not encountered during
the subsurface investigation, especially in “at-grade” and fill embankment areas. Any such materials identified
should be removed and replaced with suitable compacted fill (ODOT Item 203, or Item 204 when within 12 inches
of the proposed subgrade). Recommendations for existing ditches have been previously presented in Section 6.3,
“Unsuitable Subgrade Materials” of this report.
Once the desired subgrade elevation has been attained in all “cut” and “at-grade” areas, and after overexcavation
of all existing unsuitable subgrade materials has been completed, the subgrade soil beneath the entire roadway
and shoulder pavement area should be scarified and recompacted to a depth of 12 inches below the subgrade
level in accordance with ODOT Item 204.03. During recompaction, the moisture content of the subgrade soil
should be maintained or adjusted in accordance with ODOT Item 203.07.A.
Following the completion of the scarification and recompaction of the subgrade in these “cut” and “at-grade”
areas, it is strongly recommended that construction traffic be restricted from traveling on the compacted
subgrade until final acceptance proofrolling has been performed. Cohesive subgrade soils subjected to repeated
moisture fluctuations, which may occur as a result of exposure to rainfall and/or surface water runoff, may exhibit
subgrade instability.
5.2.2 Borrow Requirements and Compaction Criteria

New fill should consist of inorganic soil free of all miscellaneous materials, cobbles, and boulders, which is placed
in uniform, thin layers and then compacted in accordance with either Item 203, “Roadway Excavation and
Embankment”, or when within 12 inches of the proposed subgrade level, Item 204 “Subgrade Compaction and
Proofrolling”, of the ODOT CMS. Borrow materials should not be placed in a frozen condition or upon a frozen
surface, and any sloping surfaces on which new fill is to be placed should first be benched in accordance with
either Item 203.05 or ODOT GB2, depending on the slope of the existing ground surface at each location.
Also, as recommended in Section 6.2 of this report, any borrow materials to be used as new fill or backfill within 3
feet of the proposed subgrade level be tested in the laboratory to determine that the borrow materials are
capable of exhibiting subgrade support characteristics that are no less than the CBR value used during the
pavement design. If a global cement stabilization program is desired by the Owner, S&ME also recommends that
borrow soil placed within 12 inches of the proposed subgrade level also possess a Plasticity Index no greater than
20.
Compaction requirements for the construction of earthen embankments are based on ODOT CMS Item 203.07.B
(or Item 204.03 when within 12 inches of subgrade level), which specifies a minimum percent compaction based
on the dry unit weight of the type of soil fill being placed as borrow. Heavy equipment should not perform
compaction adjacent to the retaining wall. At the time of this submittal, it is unknown if a borrow source will be
required for this project. S&ME recommends that, if a borrow site is required, that sampling and testing of this
borrow material be performed prior to construction to verify that the borrow soils are suitable for the planned
construction.
March 30, 2018 7

5.2.3 Compaction/Moisture Conditioning Concerns

The cohesive soils encountered in the borings performed for this project, if exposed to inclement weather or
rainfall, may rapidly absorb additional moisture and weaken. It is imperative that these soil types not be exposed
to rainfall while in a loosened state (such as during disking and drying for moisture conditioning during fill
placement). Should these materials become sufficiently saturated that additional moisture conditioning is
impractical, the material should be wasted. Therefore, it is recommended that moisture conditioning only be
performed when extended periods of suitable weather are anticipated, and that only the amount of borrow soil be
exposed that may be moisture conditioned and properly compacted during suitable weather periods.
5.2.4 Subgrade Preparation

Once the design subgrade elevation has been attained for the proposed roadway embankments, the subgrade
should be compacted and proofrolled in accordance with ODOT Item 204 with any weak or unsuitable areas
repaired in accordance with ODOT Item 204.07.
5.3 Culvert Replacement Recommendations
5.3.1 General Discussion

S&ME understands that a large sinkhole was created by the partial collapse of a corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
culvert below this section of Van Blaricum Road. We understand that the existing arch structure below Van
Blaricum Road will be replaced with a new 4-sided box culvert with wing walls. We understand that the existing
pavement for this section will be replaced and the sinkhole backfilled.
5.3.2 Site Preparation

The bearing material is anticipated to vary from bedrock on the eastern portion of the box culvert to soil on the
western portion of the box culvert. To minimize differential settlement and/or cracking of the bottom culvert slab,
S&ME recommends undercutting exposed bedrock at the exposed bearing surface. The undercut should extend 2
feet below the planned bearing elevation and be backfilled in accordance with Section 5.2 of this report. The
lateral limits of this remediation should extend to 18 inches beyond the culvert sides. A sketch illustrating this
conceptually is provided as Figure 3 in Appendix I.
5.3.3 Culvert Bearing Resistance

Based on the conditions encountered in the structure borings (B-5 and B-6), S&ME recommends that the culvert
walls, and wing walls be supported on spread foundations which bear at least 12 inches below the bottom of any
adjacent rip rap placed for scour protection, or at a depth in accordance with local frost code requirements,
whichever is lower.
Table 5-1 summarizes the recommended nominal and factored bearing resistances (qn and qR) at the service and
strength limit states for spread foundations bearing on the soil for the culvert and wing walls.
March 30, 2018 8

Table 5-1 – Recommended Bearing Capacities

Recommended Recommended
Anticipated
Nominal Bearing Resistance Factored Bearing
Limit State Bearing
Resistance, qn Factor, ϕ Resistance, qR
Elevation (ft)
(ksf)* (ksf)*
Service 4.0 1.0 4.0
605 to 607.5
Strength 11.0 0.5 5.5
* For vertical loading only. Foundations may need to extend deeper to generate passive pressure to resist lateral loads or
to extend below the scour depth.
** Article 10.5.5.1 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
*** Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
**** Overexcavation below the plan bearing elevation may be required to reach acceptable bearing materials.
If weaker soils or existing unsuitable fill are present at or just below the proposed bottom of foundation elevation,
the excavation should be overexcavated and backfilled with flowable fill or as described in Section 5.2 of this
report.
Water from the stream will need to be diverted away from the foundation excavation area during excavation and
construction of the foundations. The foundation bearing surfaces should be kept dry and free from standing
water during all construction activities. If the foundation materials become wet, additional excavation may be
necessary prior to placing foundation concrete. Sumps may be required to pump water accumulations (seepage)
from the foundation excavations since the foundations will extend below the level of water in the stream.
The sidewalls of the foundation excavations should be either sloped back or braced in accordance with the most
recent OSHA excavation guidelines. Any water should be diverted away from the foundation excavation area
during excavation and construction of the foundations. The foundation bearing surfaces should be kept dry and
free from standing water during all construction activities.
S&ME recommends that the foundation excavations be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or the
Engineer’s designated representative to verify the unsuitable bearing soils are overexcavated and replaced in
accordance to Section 6.2.2, and that suitable bearing conditions are present prior to the placement of concrete.
5.3.4 Eccentricity (Overturning)

Proposed spread foundations for the structure which are subjected to eccentric loadings should be designed to
account for such loading. For reference, Articles 10.6.1.3, 10.6.3.3 and 11.6.3 of the latest AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications (BDS) provide guidance on designing for eccentric loading. Once the footing design has
been finalized, it is recommended that the structural design should confirm that the eccentricity of the foundation
is less than 0.33 of the appropriate footing dimension (width and/or length) for footings on soils, respectively
(AASHTO Article 10.6.3.3).
March 30, 2018 9

5.3.5 Sliding Resistance

Sliding resistance to lateral loads is provided by the weight of the structure in combination with the friction
developed along the bottom of the foundations at the interface with the underlying soils, as well as from passive
resistance from the soil available throughout the design life of the structure. The factored resistance against
failure by sliding (RR) should be determined using Eq. 10.6.3.4-1 of the current AASHTO LRFD BDS.
Because the proposed foundations will likely consist of pre-cast units which bear on cohesive soil, S&ME
recommends that the nominal sliding resistance (Rτ) be determined by using the lesser of:
♦ Nominal sliding resistance (Rτ) calculated using a unit shear resistance value of 2,000 psf (equal to
soil’s undrained shear strength); or,
♦ 50% of the vertical effective stress (ksf) on the bottom of the foundation (as shown in Figure 10.6.3.4-
1 of the AASHTO LRFD, in the event that over-excavation is required to remove unsuitable soils and at
least 6 inches of compacted granular material is placed beneath the headwall.
As shown in AASHTO Figure 10.6.3.4-1, variations in the distribution of the applied vertical effective stress across
the width and/or length of the footing must also be considered, as the method which computes the lesser value
of Rτ may change based on the distribution of stress to the base of the footing. The factored resistance to sliding
may then be computed using the AASHTO resistance factor for shear resistance (φτ) of 0.85 for foundations on
cohesive soil.
If an overexcavation is necessary to remove weak, unsuitable soils and backfilled as described in Section 6.2.2,
S&ME recommends using a value of 0.60 for the coefficient of friction between the ODOT CMS Item 703.16 Type E
aggregate (minimum 12 inches thick) and the foundation. In addition to the above parameters, S&ME
recommends using a unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for soil above the foundation bearing level
during evaluation of overturning potential.
Additional resistance to sliding of spread footings could be derived from increasing the width of the footing or
from passive pressure developed along the inside toe of the footing. If additional passive resistance is needed, a
foundation key can be designed. The foundation key should be located within the middle-half of the foundation.
S&ME recommends a nominal passive resistance of 200 psf per foot of embedment. Passive resistance should be
neglected above the anticipated depth of scour and/or frost. S&ME recommends a resistance factor for passive
resistance (φep) of 0.50 be used to compute the factored passive resistance. It is important that all loosened soil
be removed from the face of the foundation excavation that will provide the passive resistance.
5.3.6 Bedrock Excavation Considerations

Interbedded shale and limestone bedrock was encountered in the borings performed for the culvert, and rock
excavation will likely be required to construct the spread foundations. The contractor should be made aware of
the need for bedrock excavation at this site. The layers of limestone interbedded within the shale bedrock is hard
and can be difficult to excavate with conventional mechanical equipment in confined spaces (e.g., spread
foundation, utility trenches, etc.).
March 30, 2018 10

S&ME recommends that the bidding documents for this project encourage all potential contractors to perform
additional exploratory test pits to investigate the depth to which excavations can reasonably be performed using
conventional soil excavation equipment and methods. It must be emphasized that a direct correlation should not
be made between the performance of the drilling rigs and the ability of construction equipment to excavate the
bedrock at this site.
5.3.7 Scour Countermeasures

Plan information from BBI indicates no protection from scour with rock channel protection. It is recommended
that scour analysis be performed and mitigation methods such as rip rap, grouting or scour micropiles be used
based on the scour analysis. Rip-rap used for this purpose should be properly sized based on the anticipated
channel velocities. However, rip-rap is not a permanent countermeasure against, nor does it totally eliminate the
potential for scour. For this reason, it is strongly recommended that the project plans and specifications also
contain provisions for routine maintenance of the rip-rap blanket to ensure that the design blanket thickness is
preserved over the design life of the culvert. Additionally, in all cases where rip-rap is used for scour protection,
the culvert must be monitored during and inspected after, periods of high flow. Considering the toe of the
abutments will be below the design flood elevation, S&ME recommends the embedded portion of the wall be
protected from scour to minimize potential for loss of backfill soil or retained soil from behind the walls.
5.3.8 Lateral Earth Pressures

The proposed culvert walls and wing walls must be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures, as well as
hydrostatic pressures, that may develop behind the structures. The magnitude of the lateral earth pressures varies
on the basis of soil type, permissible wall movement, and the configuration of the backfill.
To minimize lateral earth pressures, the zone behind below grade walls should be backfilled with granular soil, and
the backfill should be effectively drained. For effective drainage, a zone of free-draining gravel (ODOT Item
518.03) should be used directly behind the structures for a minimum thickness of 24 inches in accordance with
ODOT Item 518.05. This granular zone should drain to either weepholes or a pipe, so that hydrostatic pressures
do not develop against the walls.
The type of backfill beyond the free-draining granular zone, however, will govern the magnitude of the pressure
to be used for structural design. Pressures of a relatively low magnitude will be developed by the use of granular
backfill, whereas a cohesive (clay) backfill will result in the development of much higher pressures. To reduce the
lateral earth pressures and increase slope stability, S&ME recommends using granular backfill behind the below
grade walls.
It is recommended that granular backfill be used behind the modular block walls, box culverts, and wing walls.
The backfill should be placed in a wedge formed by the back of the structure and a line rising from the base of the
structure at an angle no greater than 60 degrees from the horizontal. Granular backfill behind the structure
should be compacted in accordance with ODOT Item 203 of the most recent CMS. Overcompaction in areas
directly behind the walls should be avoided as this might cause damage to the structure.
If proper drainage (ODOT CMS Item 518.05) is used and the granular backfill is placed and compacted in the
wedge described previously, an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used if a
March 30, 2018 11

wall movement equivalent to 0.25 percent of the height of the abutment, wingwall, or retaining wall (H) is allowed
to occur. Such movement is considered sufficient to mobilize an active earth pressure condition. In this case, the
resultant lateral force should be taken as acting at 0.33H (AASHTO LRFD Article 3.11.5). If this movement is not
anticipated or cannot occur, it is recommended that an “at-rest” equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf be used.
Compacted cohesive materials tend alternatively to shrink, expand and creep over periods of time and create
significant lateral pressures on any adjacent structures. Cohesive materials also require a greater amount of
movement to mobilize an active earth pressure condition. For these reasons, if proper drainage (ODOT Item 518)
is provided and a wall movement in excess of 1.0 percent of the height of the abutment or retaining wall (H) is
allowed to occur, an equivalent fluid unit weight of 65 pcf may be used for design of the abutment walls to resist
the lateral loads imparted by drained cohesive backfill. If this amount of movement is not anticipated or cannot
occur, it is recommended that an “at-rest” equivalent fluid unit weight of 80 pcf be used.
The structures must also be designed to withstand the surcharge effect of traffic in addition to the vertical load
resulting from the weight of any fill and pavement to be placed over the structures. To estimate vertical loading, a
total unit weight of 120 pcf and 125 pcf may be used for compacted cohesive and granular soil, respectively.
5.4 Retaining Wall Design

After completion of our explorations, the HCEO requested S&ME evaluate a soldier pile and lagging retaining wall
along the western edge of the planned roadway. HCEO requested the lagging consist of unreinforced drilled
shafts offset from the reinforced sections. Kleingers provided S&ME with 15 percent design plans showing the
approximate location of the planned retaining wall. The culvert will outlet through the soldier pile retaining wall,
however, the details of the retaining wall and culvert connections are beyond the scope of our services.
Based on the condition encountered S&ME developed design plans, which are included as Appendix V to this
report. Following receipt of comments from HCEO, S&ME will finalize this report and the retaining wall design
plans. Table 5-2 summarizes the soldier pile retaining wall. Refer to Appendix V for more details.
Table 5-2 – Soldier Pile Retaining Wall Summary

Shaft Diameter (in) Shaft Spacing (in) Beam Size Number of Shafts
36 60 W24x55 26
36 60 W24x68 23
36 60 W24x76 17
36 36 W24x117 4
36 60 Unreinforced 64
6.0 Follow-up Services

Our services should not end with the submission of this geotechnical report. S&ME should be kept involved
throughout the design and construction process to maintain continuity and to verify our recommendations are
March 30, 2018 12

properly interpreted and implemented. To achieve this, we should be retained to review project plans and
specifications with the designers to see that our recommendations are fully incorporated. We also should be
retained to observe and test the site preparation, foundation excavation, and building construction. If we are not
allowed the opportunity to continue our involvement on this project, we cannot be held responsible for the
recommendations in this report.
Our familiarity with the site and with the foundation recommendations will make us a valuable part of your
construction quality assurance team. In addition, a qualified engineering technician should observe and test all
structural concrete and steel. Only experienced, qualified persons trained in geotechnical engineering and familiar
with foundation construction should be allowed to evaluate and test foundation excavations. Normally, full-time
observations and testing of the site work and foundation installation is appropriate.
7.0 Final Considerations

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for
specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based
upon applicable standards of our practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other
representation or warranty either express or implied, is made.
We relied on project information given to us to develop our conclusions and recommendations. If project
information described in this report is not accurate, or if it changes during project development, we should be
notified of the changes so that we can modify our recommendations based on this additional information if
necessary.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data from a field exploration program. Subsurface
conditions can vary widely between explored areas. Some variations may not become evident until
construction. If conditions are encountered which appear different than those described in our report, we should
be notified. This report should not be construed to represent subsurface conditions for the entire site.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, our field exploration program did not include an assessment of regulatory
compliance, environmental conditions or pollutants or presence of any biological materials (mold, fungi,
bacteria). If there is a concern about these items, other studies should be performed. S&ME can provide a
proposal and perform these services if requested.
S&ME should be retained to review the final plans and specifications to confirm that earthwork, foundation, and
other recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. The recommendations in this report are
contingent on S&ME’s review of final plans and specifications followed by our observation and monitoring of
earthwork and foundation construction activities..
March 30, 2018 13

Important Information about This
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the their reports do not consider developments of which they were
specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering not informed.
study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of
a constructor— a construction contractor — or even another Subsurface Conditions Can Change
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the
prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose
this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;
with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes,
project except the one originally contemplated. or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer
before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A
Read the Full Report minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on major problems.
a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do
not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
elements only. Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory
Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific data and then apply their professional judgment to render
factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes
preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining
size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to
site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless effective method of managing the risks associated with
the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically unanticipated conditions.
indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report that was: A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final
• not prepared for you; Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent
• not prepared for your project; recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-
• not prepared for the specific site explored; or dependent recommendations are not final, because
• completed before important project changes were made. geotechnical engineers develop them principally from
judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed engineer who developed your report cannot assume
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light- responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent
industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; recommendations if that engineer does not perform the
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the
of the proposed structure; recommendations’ applicability.
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership. A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject
to Misinterpretation
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of
of project changes—even minor ones—and request an geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read
engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s
plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered
a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and an environmental study differ significantly from those used to
preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
construction observation. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental
findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about
Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a yet obtained your own environmental information,
geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but someone else.
recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal
Give Constructors a Complete Report and with Mold
Guidance Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent
can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.
conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for
To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a
complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a
a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small
constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of
of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies
encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater,
who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed
or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings
information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in
be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;
additional study. Only then might you be in a position to none of the services performed in connection with the
give constructors the best information available to you, geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be
sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely involved.
Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding for Additional Assistance
has created unrealistic expectations that have led to Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the
disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques
a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with
labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member
geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help geotechnical engineer for more information.
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part,
by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use
this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Appendices
March 30, 2018

Appendix I – Additional Figures
March 30, 2018

N
Drawing Path: L:\Projects\2017\GEO\1178-17-011 Ham Co Eng_Van Blaricum\Graphics\Composite File.dwg
SITE
SCALE
0 250 500 1000 2000
SCALE: FIGURE NO.

Vicinity Map 1" = 1000'
DATE:
8/30/2017 1
Van Blaricum Road Improvements PROJECT NUMBER
Hamilton County, Ohio 1178-17-011
B-6
B-3
B-4
Drawing Path: L:\Projects\2017\GEO\1178-17-011 Ham Co Eng_Van Blaricum\Graphics\Composite File.dwg
B-1
B-2
B-5
LEGEND SCALE
0 7.5 15 30 60
Boring Location B-X
SCALE: FIGURE NO.

Boring and Section Plan 1" = 30'
DATE:
8/30/2017 2
Van Blaricum Road Improvements PROJECT NUMBER
Hamilton County, Ohio 1178-17-011
630
Van Blaricum Road
B-002
Proposed Culvert
B-001 620

Culvert Midline Section

610
600
Drawing path: L:\Projects\2017\GEO\1178-17-011 Ham Co Eng_Van Blaricum\Graphics\Composite File.dwg
590
SCALE LEGEND
SCALE:
0 5 10 20 40 1" = 10'
B-00X Silty Clay A-6(b) Alluvium DATE:
Boring Location Rip Rap Bedrock 8/30/2017
PROJECT NUMBER
Over Excavation 1178-17-011
FIGURE NO.
3
Appendix II – Boring Logs
March 30, 2018

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BORING LOGS
FOR SAMPLING AND DESCRIPTION OF SOIL
SAMPLING DATA
- Blocked-in "SAMPLES" column indicates sample was attempted and recovered within this
depth interval.
- Sample was attempted within this interval but not recovered.
2/5/9 - The number of blows required for each 6-inch increment of penetration of a "Standard" 2-
inch O.D. split-barrel sampler, driven a distance of 18 inches by a 140-pound hammer freely
falling 30 inches. Addition of one of the following symbols indicates the use of a split-barrel
other than the 2" O.D. sampler:
2S - 2½"O.D. split-barrel sampler
3S - 3" O.D. split-barrel sampler

P - Shelby tube sampler, 3" O.D., hydraulically pushed.
R - Refusal of sampler in very-hard or dense soil, or on a resistant surface.
50-2" - Number of blows (50) to drive a split-barrel sampler a certain number of inches (2), other
than the normal 6-inch increment.
S/D - Split-barrel sampler (S) advanced by weight of drill rods (D),
S/H - Split-barrel sampler (S) advanced by combined weight of rods and drive hammer (H).
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
All soils have been classified basically in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, but
this system has been augmented by the use of special adjectives to designate the approximate
percentages of minor components as follows:
Adjective Percent by Weight
trace 1 to 10
little 11 to 20
some 21 to 35
"and" 36 to 50
The following terms are used to describe density and consistency of soils:
Term (Granular Soils) Blows per foot (N60)
Very-loose Less than 5
Loose 5 to 10
Medium-dense 11 to 30
Dense 31 to 50
Very-dense Over 50
Term (Cohesive Soils) Qu (tsf)
Very-soft Less than 0.25
Soft 0.25 to 0.5
Medium-stiff 0.5 to 1.0
Stiff 1.0 to 2.0
Very-stiff 2.0 to 4.0
Hard Over 4.0
PLATE 3
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BORING LOGS
FOR SAMPLING AND DESCRIPTION OF ROCK
SAMPLING DATA
When bedrock is encountered and rock core samples are attempted, the length
of core recovered and lost during the core run is reported as a percentage in the
RQD “SAMPLE REC-%” column and the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) value is
95%
reported as a percentage in the “SAMPLE EFFORT” column. The type of rock
core barrel utilized is recorded under the heading “SAMPLER(S)”. Rock-core
barrels can be of either single- or double-tube construction, and a special series
of double-tube barrels, designated by the suffix M, is commonly used to obtain
RQD
64% maximum core recovery in very-soft or fractured rock. Four basic groups of
barrels are used most often in subsurface investigations for engineering
purposes, and these groups and the diameters of the cores obtained are as
follows:
AX, AW, AXM, AWM - 1-1/8 inches
BX, BW, BXM, BWM - 1-5/8 inches
NX, NW, NXM, NWM - 2-1/8 inches
NQ - 1-7/8 inches
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is expressed as a percentage and is obtained by summing the
total length of all core pieces which are at least 4 inches long and then dividing this sum by the
total length of core run. It has been found that there is a reasonably good relationship between
the RQD value and the general quality of rock for engineering purposes: This relationship is
shown as follows:
RQD - % General Quality
0 - 25 Very-poor
25 – 50 Poor
50 – 75 Fair
75 – 90 Good
90 – 100 Excellent
ROCK HARDNESS
THE FOLLOWING TERMS ARE USED TO DESCRIBE ROCK HARDNESS:

Mohs'
Term Meaning Hardness
Very-soft Rock such as shale can be easily picked apart by the Less
fingers. Sandstone is poorly cemented and very friable. than 1
The rock resembles hard clay or dense sand, but has
rock structure.
Soft Rock such as shale, siltstone or limestone can be 1 to 1½
scratched or powdered by fingernail pressure. Sandstone
is mostly poorly cemented, and individual sand grains can
be separated from the main rock mass by a fingernail.
Medium-hard Rock cannot be scratched by a fingernail, but can be 2½ to 5½
powdered by a knife. Sandstone is mostly well
cemented, but individual grains can be removed by
scratching with a knife.
Hard Rock is well cemented and cannot be powdered by a 5½ to 6½
knife. Rock can be powdered by a steel file.
Very-hard Rock cannot be scratched by a steel file and the core Greater
sample rings when struck with a hammer. than 6½
PLATE 4
S&ME JOB: 1178-17-011
SME ODOT LOG(8.5X11)-CURRENT WITH PLATES - OH DOT.GDT - 8/30/17 13:25 - L:\RESOURCES\CS\LABORATORY\GINTW\PROJECTS\117817011.GPJ
PROJECT: VAN BLARICUM ROAD DRILLING FIRM / OPERATOR: CSD / M. JAMESON DRILL RIG: CSD CME 55 STATION / OFFSET: 12+66.0, 34.0 LT EXPLORATION ID
TYPE: SETTLEMENT SAMPLING FIRM / LOGGER: S&ME / A. DINGLER HAMMER: CME AUTOMATIC ALIGNMENT: ROADWAY B-001
PID: BR ID: DRILLING METHOD: 3.25" HSA / NQ2 CALIBRATION DATE: 7/3/17 ELEVATION: 618.0 (MSL) EOB: 25.5 ft. PAGE
START: 8/1/17 END: 8/1/17 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT / NQ2 ENERGY RATIO (%): 90.3 LAT / LONG: Not Recorded 1 OF 1
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ELEV. SPT/ REC SAMPLE HP GRADATION (%) ATTERBERG ODOT BACK
DEPTHS N60 CLASS (GI)
AND NOTES 618.0 RQD (%) ID (tsf) GR CS FS SI CL LL PL PI WC FILL
FILL:Stiff, gray brown, SANDY SILT, some fine to coarse sand,
some cobbles, little fine to coarse gravel, damp, contains cinders. 1 5
4 14 33 SS-1 2.0- - - - - - - - - - A-4a (V)
2 3.0
5
615.0
3
FILL: Soft, gray brown. SILTY CLAY, little fine to coarse gravel,
damp. 2
4 1 6 33 SS-2 0.75- - - - - - - - - 16 A-6b (V)
1.5
3
612.5 5
FILL: Soft, dark brown, SILTY CLAY, little fine to coarse gravel, 6
little fine to coarse sand, contains organics, contains organics, 1
1 8 50 SS-3 0.0- - - - - - - - - 19 A-6b (V)
damp. 7 0.75
4
610.0
8
FILL: Stiff, brown mottled gray, SILT AND CLAY, little fine to
coarse gravel, trace fine to coarse sand, contains organics, damp. 9 5 - 100 SS-4A 2.5- - - - - - - - - - A-6a (V)
608.5 4 3.0
FILL: Medium stiff, brown CLAY, little fine to coarse sand, little 3 100 SS-4B 2.0- - - - - - 44 19 25 22 A-7-6 (V)
10 2.5
fine to coarse gravel, damp.
11
606.3
Fill: Stiff, gray, SILTY CLAY, little fine to coarse gravel, contains 12
cinders, damp.
13
14 6
7 20 33 SS-5 - - - - - - - - - A-6b (V)
6
15
16
601.3
Very-stiff, gray, SILTY CLAY, some fine to coarse gravel, little 17
fine to coarse sand, damp.
18
599.0 9
-
TR 19 50/5" 55 SS-6 - - - - - - - - 14 A-6b (V)
INTERBEDDED SHALE(85%) AND LIMESTONE(15%):
Shale, gray, highly weathered, very weak, highly fractured to 20
fractured;
Limestone, gray, slightly to moderately weathered, strong, 4"layer 21
at 20.6', 2" layers at 22.9' and 23.5'. 60 100 NX-7 - - - - - - - - 12 CORE
(REC=100%) 22
23
24 11 69 NX-8 CORE
592.5 25
EOB
PLATE 3
NOTES: NONE
ABANDONMENT METHODS, MATERIALS, QUANTITIES: BACKFILLED WITH AUGER CUTTINGS
S&ME JOB: 1178-17-011
PROJECT: VAN BLARICUM ROAD DRILLING FIRM / OPERATOR: CSD / M. JAMESON DRILL RIG: CSD CME 55 STATION / OFFSET: 13+35.0, 45.0 RT EXPLORATION ID
FILL: Medium stiff, brown gray, SILTY CLAY and fine to coarse
gravel, little fine to coarse sand. 1 5
4 14 72 SS-1 4.5+ - - - - - - - - - A-6b (V)
2 5
622.0
3
FILL: Medium stiff, dark-brown, SILTY CLAY and fine to coarse
gravel, trace fine to coarse sand, contains cinders. 2
4 3 9 33 SS-2 0.75- - - - - - - - - - A-6b (V)
1.0
619.8 3
5
FILL: Stiff to very stiff, brown mottled gray, CLAY, trace fine
gravel, trace fine sand, moist. 6 1 1 3 51 44 53 28 25 32 A-7-6 (17)
ST-3 2.0-
2.5
7
617.0
8
POSSIBLE FILL: Medium dense, gray, GRAVEL AND/OR
STONE FRAGMENTS WITH SAND AND SILT 9 16
11 35 50 SS-4 - - - - - - - - - A-2-6 (V)
10 12
11
613.3
TR
Weak, gray, HIGHLY WEATHERED SHALE 12
13
611.1 50/5" - 100 SS-5 - - - - - - - - - Rock (V)
INTERBEDDED SHALE(80%) AND LIMESTONE(20%) 14
13.9' Shale, gray, highly weathered, very weak, fractured; 15 52 92 NX-6 CORE
14.4' Limestone, gray, slightly weathered, strong, thin bedded,
fossiliferous; 16
15.0' Shale, gray, highly weathered, very weak;
15.1' Limestone ,gray, moderately to slightly weathered, strong, 17
thin bedded, fossiliferous, 90° high angle joint; 74 91 NX-7 CORE
15.3' Shale, gray, moderately weathered, weak to slightly strong, 18
606.1 - - - - - - - - 6
contains 2" piece of Limestone at 16'. EOB
PLATE 4
NOTES: SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED AT 16.0 FEET.

S&ME JOB: 1178-17-011
FILL: Soft, dark-brown mottled brown, SILTY CLAY, some fine
to coarse sand, trace fine gravel, damp. 1 1
2 6 56 SS-1 0.75- 1 21 4 23 51 41 19 22 23 A-7-6 (13)
634.5 2 1.0
2
FILL: Medium stiff, brown, SILTY CLAY, trace fine to coarse 3 2
3 9 78 SS-2 1.25- - - - - - - - - - A-6b (V)
sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, damp. 1.75
633.0 3
4 3
FILL: Medium stiff, brown, SILTY CLAY, trace fine to coarse 1.0-
sand, little fine to coarse gravel, damp. 3 9 50 SS-3 2.0 - - - - - 39 18 21 24 A-6b (V)
5 3
631.3
FILL: Stiff to very stiff, dark dray, SILTY CLAY little fine to 6
coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, moist 1.5-
7 ST-4 2.0 6 5 3 44 42 39 20 19 24 A-6b (12)
8
9 7
8 24 0 SS-NR - - - - - - - - -
10 8
625.8 11
POSSIBLE FILL: Medium-STIFF TO SITFF, gray, SILTY CLAY,
some fine to coarse gravel, little fine to coarse sand, damp 12
13
14 14
13 45 72 SS-5 2.5- - - - - - - - - - A-2-6 (V)
3.5
17
15
16
619.5 17
TR
Very-dense, gray,SHALE highly weathered and limestone 18
fragments, dry.
50/5" - 100 SS-6 - - - - - - - - - Rock (V)
19
616.5 20
SHALE gray, highly weathered to moderately weathered, very 21 60 100 NX-7 CORE
weak to weak.
22
23
69 100 NX-8 CORE
24
611.5 25
EOB
PLATE 5
NOTES: NONE
S&ME JOB: 1178-17-011
TYPE: SETTLEMENT SAMPLING FIRM / LOGGER: S&ME / C. BURTON HAMMER: CME AUTOMATIC ALIGNMENT: ROADWAY B-004
Fill: Soft, dark-brown, SILT AND CLAY, some fine to coarse
sand, damp. 1 1
1 3 44 SS-1 3.5- 0 24 6 24 46 40 21 19 21 A-6b (11)
2 4.5
618.3 1
Fill: Very stiff, brown, SILTY CLAY, some fine to coarse sand, 3
some fine to coarse gravel, damp. 3.0-
4 ST-2 3.25 - - - - - - - - - A-6b (V)
615.5 5
Fill: Stiff, brown gray, SILTY CLAY, some fine to coarse sand, 6
trace fine to coarse gravel, damp. 5
6 20 50 SS-3 2.0- - - - - - 38 19 19 11 A-6b (V)
7 2.5
7
613.0
8
Loose, brown gray, GRAVEL AND/OR STONE FRAGMENTS
WITH SAND AND SILT, damp. 9 3
4 14 17 SS-4 - - - - - - - - 12 A-2-4 (V)
10 5
11
609.3
TR
Very-dense, gray, WEATHERED SHALE, some limestone 12
fragments
13
607.1 50/4" - 100 SS-5 - - - - - - - - - Rock (V)
INTERBEDDED SHALE (85%) AND LIMESTONE (15%): 14
Shale, gray, highly weathered, very weak to weak, highly 15
fractured; 0 77 NX-6 CORE
Limestone, gray, slightly weathered, strong, 2" layers at 14.1', 16
14.5' and 16.9'.
(REC=66%) 17
18 43 100 NX-7 CORE
602.1 - - - - - - - - 7
EOB
PLATE 6
NOTES: NONE
S&ME JOB: 1178-17-011
Fill: Medium stiff, brown, SANDY SILT, some fine to coarse
sand, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobble fragments, damp. 1 5
4 11 67 SS-1 1.0- - - - - - - - - - A-4a (V)
2 2.0
3
605.0
3
Fill: Medium stiff, brown, SILTY CLAY, little fine cravel, little fine
to coarse sand, contains cinders, damp. 2
4 3 11 39 SS-2 2.5- - - - - - - - - 15 A-6b (V)
3.0
4
602.5 5
Fill: Stiff, gray, SILTY CLAY with relic bedding similar to 6
severly-weathered shale, trace limestone fragments, damp. 4
6 18 61 SS-3 3.5 - - - - - 38 18 20 18 A-6b (V)
7 6
600.0
8
9 6
4 12 0 SS-NR - - - - - - - - -
10 4
596.5 11
TR
SHALE, , gray, highly weathered, weak, dry. 12
13
14 23
47 131 100 SS-4 - - - - - - - - - Rock (V)
593.0 40
EOB 15
PLATE 7
NOTES: SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED AT 8.5 FEET. ENCOUNTERED A COBBLES AT 8.5 FEET.

S&ME JOB: 1178-17-011
Fill: Very-stiff, gray, SILTY CLAY, little fine to coarse gravel,
trace fine to coarse sand, damp. 1 10
7 21 33 SS-1 3.0- - - - - - - - - 20 A-6b (V)
2 4.5
7
625.0
3
Fill: Very-stiff, gark-brown, SILTTY AND CLAY, little fine to
coarse sand, little fine to coarse gravel, contains cobble 7 - 92 SS-2A 1.0- - - - - - - - - 15 A-6a (V)
623.6 4 9 1.5
fragments, damp. 33 SS-2B - - - - - - - - - A-6a (V)
8
Fill: Dense, gray, SILT AND CLAY and fine to coarse sand, little 622.5 5
fine to coarse gravel, contains cobble fragments, damp. 6
Fill: Very-stiff, gray mottled brown with red and black traces, 8
8 45 50 SS-3 1.5- - - - - - 30 16 14 11 A-6a (V)
SILT AND CLAY, some fine to coarse sand, little fine to coarse 7 2.0
22
gravel, damp. 620.0
TR 8
SHALE, gray, weathered, hard, contains limestone fragments,
dry. 18
9 50/5" - 100 SS-4 - - - - - - - - - Rock (V)
618.0
EOB 10
PLATE 8
NOTES: NONE
Date: 8/11/2017
Photographer: ASD
Boring B-001
Depth 20.5 to 25.5 feet
Date: 8/11/2017
Photographer: ASD
Boring B-002
March 30, 2018 PLATE 9

Date: 8/11/2017
Photographer: ASD
Boring B-003
Date: 8/11/2017
Photographer: ASD
Boring B-004

FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Operations: The general field procedures employed by S&ME, Inc. are summarized in ASTM D 420 which is entitled "Investigating and
Sampling Soils and Rocks for Engineering Purposes." This recommended practice lists recognized methods for determining soil and rock
distribution and ground water conditions. These methods include geophysical and in situ methods as well as borings.
Borings are drilled to obtain subsurface samples using one of several alternate techniques depending upon the subsurface conditions. These
techniques are:
a. Continuous 2-1/2 or 3-1/4 inch I.D. hollow stem augers;
b. Wash borings using roller cone or drag bits (mud or water);
c. Continuous flight augers (ASTM D 1425).
These drilling methods are not capable of penetrating through material designated as "refusal materials." Refusal, thus indicated, may result from
hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling
procedures are required to determine the character and continuity of refusal materials.
The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field test boring record by a field engineer who is on site to direct the
drilling operations and log the recovered samples. The record contains information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and
recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as coarse gravel, cobbles, etc., and observations between samples. Therefore,
these boring records contain both factual and interpretive information. The field boring records are on file in our office.
The soil and rock samples plus the field boring records are reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. The engineer classifies the soils in general
accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488 and prepares the final boring records that are the basis for all evaluations and
recommendations.
The final boring records represent our interpretation of the contents of the field records based on the results of the engineering examinations and
tests of the field samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled. Soil
conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the
subsurface soil and ground water conditions at these boring locations. The lines designating the interface between soil or refusal materials on the
records and on profiles represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The final boring records are
included with this report. The detailed data collection methods using during this study are discussed on the following pages.
Soil Test Borings: Soil test borings were made at the site at locations shown on the attached Boring Plan. Soil sampling and penetration testing
were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586.
The borings were made by mechanically twisting a 5-5/8” outer diameter auger into the soil. At regular intervals, the drilling tools were removed
and samples obtained with a standard 1.4 inch I.D., 2 inch O.D., split tube sampler. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose
cuttings, then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler the final foot was recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance”.
Representative portions of the samples, thus obtained, were placed in glass jars and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples
were examined to verify the driller's field classifications. Test Boring Records are attached which graphically show the soil descriptions and
penetration resistances.
Soil Auger Soundings: Soil auger soundings were made at the site at the locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The soundings were
performed by mechanically twisting a steel auger into the soil. However, unlike the soil test borings, a smaller diameter solid stem auger was used and
no split-spoon samples were obtained. The driller provided a general description of the soil encountered by observing the soils brought to the surface
by the twisting auger. The auger was advanced until refusal materials were encountered and the refusal depth was noted by the driller. The auger is
then withdrawn and the depths to water or caved materials are then measured and recorded by the driller.
Soil auger soundings provide a rapid, economical method of obtaining the approximate bedrock depth, groundwater depth, and general soil conditions
at locations where detailed soil testing and sampling is not required.
Water Level Readings: Water table readings are normally taken in conjunction with borings and are recorded on the "Test Boring Records".
These readings indicate the approximate location of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our field investigation. Where impervious soils are
encountered (clayey soils) the amount of water seepage into the boring is small, and it is generally not possible to establish the location of the
hydrostatic water table through water level readings. The ground water table may also be dependent upon the amount of precipitation at the site
during a particular period of time. Fluctuations in the water table should be expected with variations in precipitation, surface run-off, evaporation
and other factors.
The time of boring water level reported on the boring records is determined by field crews as the drilling tools are advanced. The time of boring
water level is detected by changes in the drilling rate, soil samples obtained, etc. Additional water table readings are generally obtained at least
24 hours after the borings are completed. The time lag of at least 24 hours is used to permit stabilization of the ground water table which has
been disrupted by the drilling operations. The readings are taken by dropping a weighted line down the boring or using an electrical probe to
detect the water level surface. Occasionally the borings will cave-in, preventing water level readings from being obtained or trapping drilling water
above the caved-in zone. The cave-in depth is also measured and recorded on the boring records.
Appendix III – Laboratory Testing Results
March 30, 2018

Form No. TR-D2166-01 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Revision No. : 0 OF COHESIVE SOILS
Revision Date: 2/5/13 ASTM D2166
S&ME, Inc. - Knoxville 1413 Topside Road, Louisville, TN 37777
Project No.: 1178-17-011 Report Date: 8/18/2017
Project Name: Van Blaricum Improvements Test Date(s): 8/17/2017
Client Name: Hamilton County Engineer
Client Address: Cincinnati, OH
Boring #: B-1
Depth: 21.5 - 22.2 ft
Sample Description: Greenish gray shale with some clay and silt
Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date: Type and Specification S&ME ID # Cal Date:
Balance(s) 9398 08/02/17 Load Cell 1000 lbs. 16036 04/14/17
Calipers 32243 01/26/17 Deflection (inches) 18429 10/14/16
Load Frame 8050 01/31/17 Stop Watch 31681 06/22/17
Failed Specimen
Unconfined Compressive Strength
11.0
10.0
9.0
Compressive Strength, KSF
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0 Type of Sample: Intact

Source of Moisture Sample: Trimmings
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Liquid Limit: TNP
Strain, %
Plasticity Index: TNP
Initial Dry Unit Weight: 125.6 pcf Initial Water Content: 11.7% Height to Diameter Ratio: 2.1
Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu: 9.672 KSF Rate of Strain (%/m): 1.23
Undrained Shear Strength, su: 4.836 KSF Strain at Failure: 4.4
References / Comments / Deviations:

TNP: Test Not Performed
Jeffery A. Abston, P.E. Project Engineer 8/18/2017

Technical Responsibility Signature Position Date
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of S&ME, Inc.
ASTM D2166 (B-1, 21.5 - 22.2 ft).xls Page 1 of 1

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
(ASTM D7012 Method C)
S&ME, Inc. - Knoxville 1413 Topside Road, Louisville, TN 37777
Project Name: Van Blaricum Improvements Report Date: August 18, 2017
Project Number: 1178-17-011 Reviewed By: Jason B. Burgess
Boring Depth Dimensions, in. Shape Area Unit Weight Loading Rate Maximum Load Strength Moisture
Sample No.
No. (ft) Length Diameter (See Key) (in2) 3
(lbs/ft ) (psi/sec) (lbs) (psi) (%)
B-2 N/A 18.1 - 18.8 4.98 1.99 F 3.11 153.3 91 1,702 547 5.8
B-4 N/A 18.0 - 18.7 3.43 1.65 F 2.14 154.1 90 1,093 511 7.4
NOTES: Effective (as received) unit weight as determined by RTH 109-93.

Loading rates were selected to target reaching failure between 2 and 15 minutes.
Test results for specimens not meeting the requirements of ASTM D4543 may differ from a test specimen that meets the requirements of ASTM D4543.
SHAPE KEY
ASTM D4543-08 Standard Practice for Preparing Rock Core as Cylindrical Test Specimens and Verifying Conformance to Dimensional and Shape Tolerance Section 1.2 - "Rock is a complex engineering material that can vary greatly
as a function of lithology, stress history, weathering, moisture content and chemistry, and other natural geologic processes. As such, it is not always possible to obtain or prepare rock core specimens that satisfy the desirable tolerances
given in this practice. Most commonly, this situation presents itself with weaker, more porous, and poorly cemented rock types and rock types containing significant or weak (or both) structural features. For these and other rock types
which are difficult to prepare, all reasonable efforts shall be made to prepare a specimen in accordance with this practice and for the intended test procedure. However, when it has been determined by trial that this is not possible,
prepare the rock specimen to the closest tolerances practicable and consider this to be the best effort and report it as such and if allowable or necessary for the intended test, capping the ends of the specimen as discussed in this
practice is permitted."
A Test specimen measurements met the desired shape tolerances of ASTM D4543-08 (side straightness, end flatness & parallelism, and end perpendicularity to axis)
B Test specimen measurements met the desired shape tolerances of ASTM D4543-08 for end flatness & parallelism, and end perpendicularity to axis. Specimen did not meet the desired tolerance for side
straightness. Specimen prepared to closest tolerances practicable.
C Test specimen measurements met the desired shape tolerances of ASTM D4543-08 for end flatness & parallelism. Specimen did not meet the desired tolerances for side straightness and end perpendicularity to
axis. Specimen prepared to closest tolerances practicable.
D Test specimen measurements met the desired shape tolerances of ASTM D4543-08 for end flatness. Specimen did not meet the desired tolerances for side straightness, parallelism and end perpendicularity to
axis. Specimen prepared to closest tolerances practicable.
E Test specimen measurements met the desired shape tolerances of ASTM D4543-08 for end flatness and end perpendicularity to axis. Specimen did not meet the desired tolerance for side
straightness and parallelism. Specimen prepared to closest tolerances practicable.
F Test specimen physical characteristics precluded preparing specimens to the flatness tolerance specified in ASTM D4543, even with the best effort. The cores were cut to length and caps applied to end surfaces
prior to testing.
3201 Spring Forest Road Rock Core Workbook.xls
S&ME, Inc. - Corporate Raleigh, NC 27616 Page 1 of 1
Date: 8/17/2017
Photographer: Ben Painter
Location / Orientation B-2 (18.1’ – 18.8’)
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rock Core

Remarks
Specimen Before/After (ASTM D7012 Method C)
Date: 8/3/2017
Photographer: Ben Painter
Location / Orientation B-4 (18.0’ – 18.7’)
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rock Core

Remarks
Specimen Before/After (ASTM D7012 Method C)
S&ME, Inc. | 1413 Topside Road | Louisville, TN 37777 | p 865.970.0003 | f 865.970.2312 | www.smeinc.com
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
Soil Classification: Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply
past experience to current problems. In our investigations, samples obtained during drilling operations are examined in our laboratory and visually
classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to consistency (based on number of blows from standard penetration tests), color and
texture. These classification descriptions are included on our "Test Boring Records."
The classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative and for detailed soil classification two laboratory tests are necessary: grain size
tests and plasticity tests. Using these test results the soil can be classified according to the AASHTO or Unified Classification Systems (ASTM D
2487). Each of these classification systems and the in-place physical soil properties provides an index for estimating the soil's behavior. The soil
classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this report.
Compaction Tests: Compaction tests are run on representative soil samples to determine the dry density obtained by a uniform compactive effort
at varying moisture contents. The results of the test are used to determine the moisture content and unit weight desired in the field for similar
soils. Proper field compaction is necessary to decrease future settlements, increase the shear strength of the soil and decrease the permeability
of the soil.
The two most commonly used compaction tests are the Standard Proctor test and the Modified Proctor test. They are performed in accordance
with ASTM D 698 and D 1557, respectively. Generally, the Standard Proctor compaction test is run on samples from building or parking areas
where small compaction equipment is anticipated. The Modified compaction test is generally performed for heavy structures, highways, and other
areas where large compaction equipment is expected. In both tests a representative soil sample is placed in a mold and compacted with a
compaction hammer. Both tests have four alternate methods.
Test Method Hammer Wt./Fall Mold Diam. Run on Matl. Finer No. of No. of
Than Layers Blows/Lay
er
Standard A 5.5 lb./12" 4" No. 4 sieve 3 25
D 698 B 5.5 lb./12" 4" 3/8" sieve 3 25
C 5.5 lb./12" 6" 3/4" sieve 3 56
Test Method Hammer Wt./Fall Mold Diam. Run on Matl. Finer No. of No. of
Than Layers Blows/Lay
er
Modified A 10 lb./18" 4" No. 4 sieve 5 25
D 1557 B 10 lb./18" 4" 3/8" sieve 5 25
C 10 lb./18" 6" 3/4" sieve 5 56
The moisture content and unit weight of each compacted sample is determined. Usually 4 to 5 such tests are run at different moisture contents.
Test results are presented in the form of a dry unit weight versus moisture content curve. The compaction method used and any deviations from
the recommended procedures are noted in this report.
Atterberg Limits: Portions of the samples are taken for Atterberg Limits testing to determine the plasticity characteristics of the soil. The plasticity
index (PI) is the range of moisture content over which the soil deforms as a plastic material. It is bracketed by the liquid limit (LL) and the plastic
limit (PL). The liquid limit is the moisture content at which the soil becomes sufficiently "wet" to flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The plastic limit is
the lowest moisture content at which the soil is sufficiently plastic to be manually rolled into tiny threads. The liquid limit and plastic limit are
determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318.
Moisture Content: The Moisture Content is determined according to ASTM D 2216.

Appendix IV – Site Reconnaissance Photographs
March 30, 2018

Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'48.42"N; 84°40'45.62"W / Looking South
Remarks Pavement Cracking
Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'47.35"N; 84°40'46.05"W / Looking West
Remarks Sinkhole

Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'47.02"N; 84°40'46.52"W/ Looking South
Remarks Erosion within pavement and west of roadway.
Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Remarks Erosion west of roadway

Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Remarks Culvert Outlet, with Erosion
Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'47.85"N; 84°40'47.12"W / Looking South
Remarks Erosion within streambed, west of combined culvert

Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'47.76"N; 84°40'46.35"W / Looking North
Remarks Secondary sinkhole located along stream
Date: 7/18/2017
Photographer: BCD
Location / Orientation 39° 7'46.99"N; 84°40'45.03"W / Looking Northwest
Remarks Van Blaricum Road Culvert Inlet

Appendix V – Retaining Wall Design Drawings
March 30, 2018

Guia Planos Muro PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guia Planos Muro PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guia Planos Muro PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Exploration – Revised

Van Blaricum Road Improvements

March 30, 2018

Hamilton County Engineer’s Office

Attention: Mr. Todd Gadbury, P.E.

Reference: Geotechnical Exploration - Revised

Dear Mr. Gadbury:

Andrew S. Dingler, E.I. Benjamin C. Dusina, P.E.

Submitted: 1 electronic to Mr. Todd Gadbury, P.E. (Todd.Gadbury@Hamilton-Co.Org)

S&ME, Inc. | 862 E Crescentville Road | Cincinnati, OH 45246 | p 513.771.8471 | www.smeinc.com

2.0 Geology and Observations of the Project ....................................................................1

3.0 Exploration and Laboratory Program............................................................................2

4.0 Exploration Findings ........................................................................................................4

5.0 Analyses and Recommendations ...................................................................................5

March 30, 2018 ii

5.3.6 Bedrock Excavation Considerations ................................................................................................10

6.0 Follow-up Services..........................................................................................................12

7.0 Final Considerations ......................................................................................................13

March 30, 2018 iii

2.0 Geology and Observations of the Project

2.1 Regional Geology

2.2 Site Reconnaissance

March 30, 2018 1

Remarks Sinkhole adjacent to roadway

3.0 Exploration and Laboratory Program

3.1 Available Information

3.2 Field Exploration Program

March 30, 2018 2

3.3 Laboratory Testing Program

Table 3-1 – Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing

March 30, 2018 3

4.0 Exploration Findings

4.1 General Subsurface Conditions

Table 4-1 below summarizes the subsurface conditions encountered.

Table 4-1 – Summary of Subsurface Conditions

4.2 Groundwater Observations

March 30, 2018 4

5.0 Analyses and Recommendations

5.1 Subgrade Recommendations

5.1.1 Subgrade Support Parameters

MR: 4,800 psi

Resilient Modulus-Global Chemical Stabilization (MR-GCS): 6,530 psi

5.1.2 Unsuitable Subgrade Materials

March 30, 2018 5

5.1.3 Subgrade Remediation Considerations

5.2 Earthen Embankment Construction

5.2.1 Embankment Foundation Preparation

March 30, 2018 6

5.2.2 Borrow Requirements and Compaction Criteria

March 30, 2018 7

5.2.3 Compaction/Moisture Conditioning Concerns

5.2.4 Subgrade Preparation

5.3 Culvert Replacement Recommendations

5.3.1 General Discussion

5.3.2 Site Preparation

5.3.3 Culvert Bearing Resistance

March 30, 2018 8

Table 5-1 – Recommended Bearing Capacities

5.3.4 Eccentricity (Overturning)