geotechnical engineering report - socrata

Geotechnical Engineering Report Dry Run Sewers Phase 1 Contract 8M

Cincinnati, Ohio July 06, 2012

Terracon Project Number: N1125077

Prepared for: Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati

Cincinnati, Ohio

Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Cincinnati, Ohio

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Typical Profile ................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................... 3

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations .......................................................................................... 3 4.2 Site Preparation .............................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Temporary Excavations and Retention ........................................................................... 4 4.4 Construction Dewatering Considerations ........................................................................ 6 4.5 Pipe Subgrade and Bedding ........................................................................................... 7 4.6 Excavation Backfill .......................................................................................................... 8 4.7 Jack and Bore Installation ............................................................................................... 9

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 9

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map Exhibit A-2A to A-2D Test Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-3A to A-3D Summary of Geotechnical Data Exhibit A-4 Field Exploration Description Borings B-1 to B-8 2012 Test Boring Logs Borings HCN-26, HCN-32 2005 Test Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Program Description Exhibits B-2 to B-6 Unconfined Compression Test Results

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 Explanation of Boring Log Information Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System Exhibit C-3 Description of Rock Properties

Geotechnical Engineering Report Dry Run Sewers Phase 1 Contract 8M Cincinnati, Ohio July 06, 2012 Terracon Project No. N1125077

Responsive Resourceful Reliable

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical study has been performed for the Dry Run Sewers Phase 1 Contract 8M project off Eight Mile Road in Cincinnati, Ohio. A total of 8 new test borings were drilled along/near the proposed sewer alignment to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 39 feet below existing ground surface. In addition, relevant test borings performed during the 2005 geotechnical study for the Dry Run Sewers Phase I were reviewed and included as appropriate. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the following geotechnical considerations were identified:

The subsurface conditions revealed by the test borings in this study are generally consistent with those encountered during the 2005 borings in the area. The subsurface conditions generally consist of variable depths of overburden soils underlain by interbedded shale and limestone bedrock.

Open-cut excavations for sewer installation are anticipated to encounter both soils and bedrock. Excavation of bedrock is anticipated to require considerably more effort than soil excavation. The contractor shall select appropriate excavation equipment to facilitate bedrock excavation.

Mixed-face (soil and bedrock) conditions should be anticipated along the sewer alignment to be installed using jack and bore methods. The contractor should consider the occurrence of mixed-face conditions in developing appropriate means and methods. Consideration could be given to performing additional test borings to further define soil-bedrock transitions.

Less than 5 feet of ground cover may be present in some segments of the jack and bore runs. The presence of shallow ground cover and its potential impact on jack and bore installation should be taken into consideration.

Excavations for sewer installation are anticipated to make available a variety of materials (including soil and bedrock). Selective reuse of excavated material is recommended for trench backfill. Proper placement and compaction of trench backfill is extremely important to control post-construction settlements. Flowable fill is recommended in areas sensitive to post-construction backfill settlement.

The sewer subgrade is anticipated to consist of a combination of natural overburden soils and interbedded shale and limestone bedrock. The sewer pipe should be capable of handling soil-bedrock subgrade transitions. Consideration could be given to over-excavating the bedrock near the subgrade transition location and replacing with soil to facilitate a more gradual subgrade transition.

The subgrade, along portions of the sewer alignment, is anticipated to consist of silty and sandy soils that are easily disturbed. Excavation in these soils should be performed with care so as to control disturbance and overexcavation. When disturbed, stabilization measures will be necessary to restore proper subgrade support.



ii

Proper groundwater control will be important during sewer installation and trench backfilling to control excavation widths, subgrade stability and post-construction backfill settlement.

Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support and controlling post-construction backfill settlement. We recommend that Terracon be retained to perform construction testing and monitoring for this project. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.


1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DRY RUN SEWERS PHASE 1 CONTRACT 8M

EIGHT MILE ROAD CINCINNATI, OHIO Terracon Project No. N1125077

July 06, 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for Contract 8M of the Dry Run Sewers Phase 1 project off Eight Mile Road in Cincinnati, Ohio. Eight (8) test borings, designated B-1 through B-8, were performed along/near the proposed sanitary sewer alignment to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 39 feet below existing ground surface. Logs of the borings along with a Site Location Map, Boring Location Plans and Summary of Geotechnical Data are included in Appendix A of this report. Additionally, test borings performed in 2005 for the Dry Run Area Sanitary Sewer Phase I project (in the Contract 8M area) were reviewed and included in this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil and bedrock conditions temporary excavations and retention short-term groundwater conditions excavation backfill construction dewatering jack and bore installation

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

The alignment of the proposed sanitary sewer is along Eight Mile Road between Batavia Pike (State Route 32) and Stoney Bridge Drive (see Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A) in Cincinnati, Ohio. The MSDGC Plan and Profile drawings indicate the project will consist of installing approximately 2,550 lineal feet of 30 inch diameter conduit (Hobas fiberglass pipe, prestressed concrete cylinder pipe or ductile iron pipe). The pipeline will begin approximately 550 feet north of the intersection of Eight Mile Road and Bridle Road at an approximate invert elevation of 585 feet and proceed south to terminate at an approximate invert elevation of 623 feet. The sewer depths will range from approximately 10 feet to 35 feet below existing grades. Installation of the sewer will employ both open-cut (trench) and jack and bore methods. Open-cut method is planned between approximate STA 0+00 and 3+33, STA 5+42 and 9+11, STA 25+11 to 25+52 with jack and bore being employed for the remaining sections. Excavation depths in the open-cut areas range between approximately 10 and 25 feet. Five (5) new manholes will be installed



2

along the sewer alignment. Some of these manhole locations will also serve as entry and receiving pits for the jack and bore operations.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

Based on the results of the test borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Surface 0 – 1 Topsoil/Asphalt Pavement N/A

Existing Fill1 0 – 13.5 Typically Lean Clay with some Sand and Gravel

Variable

Natural Soils 3.5 – 35

Mostly Cohesive Lean or Fat Clays and some Silt layers.

Some Granular layers of Sand and Gravel

Cohesive: Medium Stiff to Hard

Granular: Medium Dense

Bedrock All borings ( except

B-8) terminated in this Stratum

Gray and brown shale, limestone

Shale: very soft to medium hard

Limestone: hard In terms of rock hardness

1. We have not been provided field monitoring records showing its placement as engineered fill. We have interpreted the fill is uncontrolled.

Conditions encountered at each boring location are described on the individual boring logs and graphically summarized on the Summary of Geotechnical Data drawings (Exhibits 3A to 3C, Appendix A). The approximate invert of the sewer is also shown on these drawings. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs and the Summary of Geotechnical Data drawings represent the approximate location of changes in soil and bedrock types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. 3.2 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed while drilling and immediately after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. In addition, delayed water levels were also obtained in some borings. The short-term water levels observed in the boreholes are noted on the attached boring logs, and are summarized below:



3

Boring Number Depth to groundwater

while drilling, ±feet Depth to groundwater

after drilling, ±feet B-1 6 10

B-2 20 not encountered

B-8 23.5 not encountered Groundwater was not observed in the remaining borings while drilling, or for the short duration that the borings were allowed to remain open. However, this does not necessarily mean these borings terminated above groundwater, or that the water levels summarized above are stable groundwater levels. Due to the low permeability of the soils encountered in the borings, a relatively long period of time may be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole in these materials. Long-term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type. From experience, perched/trapped water may be present within the existing fill. Seepage is commonly encountered along the fill/natural soil interface, soil/bedrock interface and along the interface of materials with very different permeabilities. Seepage is also commonly encountered within the bedrock along bedding planes, cracks and fissures. The overburden soils include interbedded sand, gravel and silt layers. The moisture condition of these layers can change being influenced by several factors including regional hydraulics, rainfall and their hydraulic connectivity. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The subsurface conditions encountered within the test borings for this project generally consisted of topsoil or pavement, variable depths of existing fill, and natural overburden soils underlain by shale and limestone bedrock. Per the Plan and Profile drawings provided by MSDGC, the proposed invert depth of the sewer will range from about 10 to 35 feet below surface grade. Based on the conditions encountered at the test borings, the pipe subgrade is anticipated to consist of a combination of natural overburden soils and shale/limestone bedrock. The principal geotechnical considerations for this project are:



4

Maintaining stability of temporary excavation side slopes/trench sidewalls during construction (including providing adequate excavation support).

Controlling groundwater seepage during construction.

Proper backfilling after completion of the sewer installation.

Occurrence of mixed-face conditions during jack and bore installation. The following sections provide additional discussion for the geotechnical considerations relevant to this project. 4.2 Site Preparation Site preparation is anticipated to include stripping of topsoil, pavement and removal of trees along the proposed sewer alignment. Location of existing utilities within the construction area should be clearly marked in the field and information regarding utilities (including depth, type etc.) should be confirmed prior to excavation. A pre-construction survey of existing structures (including building and grade separation walls) in the near vicinity (within 50 feet) of the sewer alignment is recommended prior to any construction activity. Basement and foundation bearing elevations (including grade separation walls) should be confirmed. This information will aid evaluation of the feasibility of performing open-cut excavations and the need for temporary excavation support systems. The lateral movement and elevations of structures (including walls and utilities) in the immediate vicinity (within 25 feet as a minimum) of the proposed sewer alignment should be monitored during construction and at completion of the project. This program may be able to detect any “loss-of-ground” conditions and prevent further ground movement due to unsuitable excavation in advance. 4.3 Temporary Excavations and Retention Open-cut excavations will be required along sections of the sewer alignment, at the manhole locations, and entry and receiving pits for the jack and bore installation. Per information provided by MSDGC, the excavation depths are anticipated to range from about 10 to 25 feet below existing ground surface. The feasibility of performing open-cut excavations will be influenced by several factors including easement widths, excavation/construction limits, groundwater conditions and control, and the location of existing utilities and structures. The contractor shall evaluate the need for temporary excavation support (in conjunction with our recommendations in this section) prior to excavation and is completely responsible for selection, design, installation, and satisfactory performance of the retention system. The design of the retention system should not only take into account the lateral forces but also the tolerable lateral deflections. Prior to performing excavations, preconstruction surveys should be performed as discussed in Section 4.2 Site Preparation. In addition, periodic survey monitoring (of both the structure and retention system) during construction is recommended. The contractor’s



5

“responsible person” should also establish a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope or excavation for all spoil piles and construction equipment. Likewise, the contractor’s “responsible person” should establish protective measures for exposed faces. The following are our recommendations for temporary open-cut excavation slopes based on subsurface conditions revealed by test borings in this study. These recommendations are based on the assumption that groundwater will be effectively controlled by dewatering. Inadequate groundwater management could cause unstable slopes that may require additional flattening of slopes, installation of intermediate benches and possibly a retention system. All open-cut excavations deeper than 5 feet (up to 20 feet) should, as a minimum, be performed per current OSHA Excavation Regulations. Open-cut excavations deeper than 20 feet should be designed by a registered professional engineer. The test borings in this study indicate that excavations for the sewer will primarily encounter a variety of soils. Shale and limestone bedrock will be encountered at some locations. From local experience, it is anticipated that excavations in the interbedded shale and limestone bedrock can be performed using a large track hoe. Some difficulty may be encountered in breaking the interbedded limestone layers and may require the use of a hoe ram. It is extremely important that the excavations not undermine existing structures/foundations, utilities, roadway embankments and temporary retention systems be installed as necessary. A minimum 5-foot clear distance is recommended between the excavation face and the leading edge of existing foundations and utilities. In addition, an imaginary minimum 1H: 1V to 1.5H:1V or flatter slope is recommended between the bottom (leading edge) of existing foundations (and utilities) and the bottom of the excavation. For excavations along the roadway embankment slope toe, we recommend that temporary excavation support be in-place prior to/at the time of performing the excavation. We will be pleased to evaluate specific cases upon request as an extension of our scope of work. It is recommended that the temporary excavation slopes be examined periodically to evaluate potential destabilizing effects. The presence of perched water within the walls of the temporary excavations (wet seams and layers) could require flatter temporary slopes than those recommended. The stockpiling of excavated soils and bedrock at/near the top of the excavation can impact the stability of the excavation slopes. We recommend that the excavated soils and bedrock be stockpiled a minimum 10 feet away from the top of the excavation to minimize surcharge effects on the slope. The operation/storage of heavy construction equipment near the top of the excavation slope and its impact on the stability of the slope should be further evaluated to determine appropriate setbacks. Excavations in the vicinity of roadway embankment slopes should be performed with extreme care. In these areas, we recommend the excavations be performed in maximum 20-foot-long sections to minimize disturbance of the slope. Each section should be backfilled prior to



6

opening up the adjacent one. Temporary retention (as needed), should be in-place prior to beginning the excavation. Proper backfilling of the excavations will be extremely important to satisfactory long-term performance of the embankment slope. The use of flowable fill is preferred to backfill excavations in the vicinity of embankment slopes. In areas where open-cut excavations are not feasible, a temporary retention system should be installed prior to excavation. Based on typical excavation depths ranging from about 10 to 20 feet and required temporary slopes, we recommend that the need for temporary retention be evaluated (as a minimum) in areas where existing structures and utilities are located within about 25 feet of the proposed sewer alignment. Consideration could be given to using a combination of open-cut and braced excavations (open-cut for the upper portion and temporary retention for the lower portion of the excavation). The need for temporary retention is anticipated at the launching and receiving pits of jack and bore locations. Based on the encountered subsurface conditions, temporary retention systems that could likely be considered are driven sheet piles or soldier piles with lagging (driven/drilled). Metal liner plates could likely be considered for the launching and reception pits at jack and bore locations. The impact of vibrations from installation on surrounding structures should be taken into consideration in selection of installation method. The lateral earth pressure distribution and required embedment depths below the bottom of excavation of the temporary retention system will be a function of whether the system is cantilevered or braced. The lateral earth pressure coefficients utilized in the design of a temporary retention system will depend on the retained material. The temporary retention system design should include surcharge pressures from adjacent structures in the near vicinity of the excavation and any heavy construction equipment that may be operated and excavated soil stockpile during sewer installation. As indicated earlier, the contractor is solely responsible for selection, design, installation, and satisfactory performance of the temporary retention system. 4.4 Construction Dewatering Considerations The short-term groundwater observations at the test borings are shown on the test boring logs and in Section 3.2 Groundwater of this report. It is extremely important to note that groundwater conditions vary throughout the year and it is therefore not possible to make absolute predictions regarding dewatering requirements. The contractor shall be solely responsible for the selection, detailed design, installation, and satisfactory operation of the dewatering system to provide suitable conditions for the installation of the sewer. It is recommended that the contractor be required to submit their groundwater management plans to MSDGC prior to construction. In areas where dewatering is required, we recommend that the sewer trenches be dewatered to a minimum depth of 5 feet below the proposed invert to maintain stability of the bottom. The dewatering system should be capable of developing adequate drawdown between wells or wellpoint locations (to be installed as needed). The dewatering system should also provide adequate drawdown for stable temporary excavation slopes. Inadequate dewatering/drawdown



7

can cause slope instability, require flattening of slopes and increase the excavation widths significantly. The horizontal influence of dewatering should be limited (but adequate to provide stable excavation slopes) from the sides of the excavation to minimize impact on surrounding areas. In areas where existing structures and utilities are located in close proximity to the sewer alignment, the settlements that may result from dewatering and its likely impact on the structures (and utilities) should be evaluated as part of the dewatering system design. In addition, we recommend that a pre-construction survey of these structures (and utilities) that may be impacted be performed and a monitoring program during construction be included. For sections of the proposed sewer line where the jack and bore method of construction will be used, it is important that the launch/jacking and receiving pits be adequately dewatered to create dry, stable conditions for the machinery and personnel to operate. 4.5 Pipe Subgrade and Bedding The pipe subgrade is anticipated to consist of a combination of natural overburden soils and interbedded shale and limestone bedrock. The sewer pipe should be capable of accommodating such subgrade transitions. Consideration could be given to over excavating (about 12 to 18 inches) the bedrock near the subgrade transition location (minimum 5 feet beyond the transition location) and replacing with engineered soil fill to facilitate a more gradual subgrade transition. Based on the test borings, the subgrade soils are anticipated to primarily consist of lean to fat clays and sand, with silt being encountered at some locations. The sandy and silty soils are easily disturbed and care should be exercised while excavating these materials. When disturbed, stabilization measures (including over excavation) may be necessary to develop a stable subgrade. Construction traffic (equipment and labor) should be kept to a minimum on the exposed subgrade to minimize disturbance. The shale bedrock can slake and become disturbed when exposed to the elements. Consideration could be given to protecting the bedrock by placing a lean concrete mud mat on the subgrade. The mud mat could also be considered to protect soil subgrade areas that are easily disturbed. The material, placement and compaction of pipe bedding should be in accordance to the pipeline company’s and MSDGC/Hamilton County’s construction specifications. We offer these general comments on pipe bedding for consideration. It is recommended that Class “B” granular pipe bedding material be used and consist of a “shaped” surface of well-graded sand and gravel with no more than 10% passing the No. 200 sieve. This granular material should not be less than 6 inches in thickness below the bottom of the pipe and should extend to a height of at least 12 inches above the top of the pipe. This material should be moisture conditioned to within + 3% of its optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 98% of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The compaction of material above the pipe should be performed with caution (and per the pipe manufacturer’s recommendations) to prevent pipe damage. The remaining trench backfill



8

above the granular zone previously described, should be in accordance with recommendations in the following section. 4.6 Excavation Backfill Proper backfilling of excavations along the proposed sewer alignment will be an important part of the overall project. The material, placement and compaction of excavation backfill should be in general accordance with MSDGC/Hamilton County specifications. The excavations for this project are anticipated to encounter a variety of soils and shale bedrock. The soils encountered in the test borings are generally suitable (except for the silts) for use as backfill material. The need for moisture conditioning (wet or dry) of excavated soils should be expected. The extent of moisture conditioning required will depend on several factors including the natural moisture condition of these soils, the stockpile duration and climatic conditions during stockpiling. Proper moisture conditioning and compaction of the silts and very silty soils are anticipated to be difficult. These soils should either be wasted off-site or mixed with other suitable on-site soils to make them suitable for reuse. We do not recommend the reuse of excavated gray shale and limestone bedrock for backfill as a significant amount of preparation will be necessary to make it suitable for reuse. Reuse of the excavated gray shale and limestone bedrock without adequate preparation could result in significant post construction settlements due to potential slaking (turning into soil upon contact with water) of the shale and nesting of the bedrock. The gray shale bedrock will have to be slaked (involves addition of significant amount of moisture and breaking down with heavy equipment) and the limestone will have to be broken down prior to reuse. It is important that the backfill be placed in thin lifts and compacted adequately to minimize post construction settlements. Adequate dewatering should be provided during backfilling operations. The magnitude of these settlements is directly related to the depth of backfill, the placement method and the degree of compaction achieved during placement. In areas where long-term groundwater levels is above the invert elevation, it is recommended that granular soils be used for backfill below the high water level to minimize settlements resulting from consolidation of backfill due to fluctuations in water levels. In areas where the sewer is in close proximity (within 25 feet) to existing structures, we recommend that flowable fill be used for backfill. Proper backfilling of excavations along the roadway embankment slope will be important to the long-term stability of the slope. Lateral squeeze of poorly placed and compacted backfill can result in slope instability. Consideration should be given to using flowable fill for backfilling excavations along the roadway embankment slope. We recommend that all soil backfill be moisture conditioned to within ±3% of their optimum moisture content, placed in thin horizontal lifts (8” or less), and compacted to a minimum 95% (95% in lawn, non-structural areas and 98% to 100% in pavement and other structural areas) Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The suitability and laboratory compaction characteristics of soil backfill should be evaluated prior to their use. Backfill



9

material and placement for excavations within streets should be in general accordance with MSDGC/Hamilton County specifications. 4.7 Jack and Bore Installation The MSDGC Plan and Profile drawings indicate the planned use of jack and bore methods for sewer installation between approximate Stations 3+33 to 5+41, 9+11 to 13+71, 13+91 to 19+71, and 19+91 to 25+11. The test borings in this study did not encounter refusal conditions (except where shale bedrock was encountered) to drilling within the exploration depths. However, the test borings indicate that mixed face (soil and bedrock) conditions are expected to occur along the jack and bore runs. The occurrence of mixed face conditions should be considered by the contractor. The referenced drawings indicate less than 5 feet of ground cover below a creek crossing between approximate Stations 23+90 and 24+30. The jack and bore contractor should consider the presence of shallow ground cover at this and other locations along the sewer alignment. The presence and impact of concrete channel linings and retaining walls (including their foundations) should be considered by the contractor. Dewatering, temporary excavations/retention and backfilling at the launch and receiving pits should be in general accordance with our recommendations in sections 4.3 Temporary Excavation and Retention, 4.4 Construction Dewatering and 4.6 Excavation Backfill of this report. In areas where soils sensitive to disturbance and construction traffic are exposed at the bottom of the pits, it would be advantageous to place a concrete mat/pad to protect the exposed soils and provide a suitable working surface for equipment and personnel. Maintaining excavation face stability will be important to controlling ground settlement. To minimize ground settlement, the casing should be advanced immediately behind the head of the augering equipment. Any significant voids between the casing and the native soils/bedrock should be completely filled with cementitious grout. Any annulus between the casing and the sewer pipe should be filled with select granular soils or cement grout (and in accordance with MSDGC specifications); in sensitive/critical areas we recommend that cement grout be used. In critical/sensitive areas, we recommend that the ground surface elevations (and structure) be monitored before, during and after the jack and bore operation to check for possible settlement related deformation. In addition, we recommend pre-construction survey and construction monitoring of nearby structures that may be impacted by the jack and bore operations.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations



10

in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

611 Lunken Park Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

PH. (513) 321-5816 FAX. (513) 321-0294

A-1

ExhibitSITE LOCATION MAPDRY RUN SEWERS PHASE 1 CONTRACT 8M

MSDGC

CINCINNATI, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

DWW

STT

RV

RV

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

N1125077

N.T.S

A1

6/21/2012

Source: Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.

EXHIBITTEST BORING LOCATION PLAN

DRY RUN SEWERS PHASE 1 CONTRACT 8MMSDGC

611 LUNKEN PARK DRIVE CINCINNATI, OHIO 45226FAX. (513) 321-4540PH. (513) 321-5816

Consulting Engineers and Scientists


DWW

STT

RV

RV

N1125077

1" = 50'

A-2A

6/26/2012

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATIONONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR

CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.

dwwestendorf

Stamp

dwwestendorf

Typewritten Text

B-2

dwwestendorf

Typewritten Text

dwwestendorf

Typewritten Text

dwwestendorf

Typewritten Text

dwwestendorf

Typewritten Text

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.






DWW

STT

RV

RV

N1125077

1" = 50'

A-2B

6/26/2012



Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.






DWW

STT

RV

RV

N1125077

1" = 50'

A-2C

6/26/2012



Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.






DWW

STT

RV

RV

N1125077

1" = 50'

A-2D

6/26/2012



Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBIT

A-3AOHIO

DRY RUN SEWERS PHASE 1 CONTRACT 8MSUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL DATA

METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICTEIGHT MILE ROAD

CINCINNATI

MSD PR.DWG

RV

KM

RV

RV

N1125077

1"=10'V

06/29/2012611 LUNKEN PARK DRIVE CINCINNATI, OHIO 45226

FAX. (513) 321-4540PH. (513) 321-5816


tludwig

Text Box

604

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No.

A-3BOHIO



CINCINNATI

MSD PR.DWG

RV

KM

RV

RV

N1125077

1"=10'V


FAX. (513) 321-4540PH. (513) 321-5816


EXHIBIT

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No.

A-3COHIO



CINCINNATI

MSD PR.DWG

RV

KM

RV

RV

N1125077

1"=10'V


FAX. (513) 321-4540PH. (513) 321-5816


EXHIBIT

_____

tludwig

Text Box

INV.623



Exhibit A-4

Field Exploration Description

The boring locations were laid out on the site by Terracon personnel using a scaled drawing provided by MSDGC. Ground surface elevations at boring locations were interpolated from site topographic plan. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. The borings were drilled with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow-stem augers to advance the boreholes. Samples of the soil encountered in the borings were obtained using the split-barrel sampling procedures. Bedrock was encountered within exploration depth at all test borings. A few samples of the bedrock were obtained by overdriving the split-barrel sampler. At B-3, approximately 5 feet of bedrock was cored using an NQ size core barrel. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a rope and cathead manual safety hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations between the SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method. This higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistance blow count (N) value by increasing the penetration per hammer blow over what would obtained using the cathead and rope method. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil and bedrock descriptions, consistency, in-situ relative density and hardness evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and short-term groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. Additionally, the surface of borings located in pavement areas was patched with a cold asphalt patch. A field log of each boring was prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's review of obtained soil and bedrock samples, driller’s field logs and include modifications based on laboratory tests of the samples.

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT A-13

0.5

3.5

6.0

13.5

23.5

25.0

TOPSOILFILL, lean clay, with gravel, trace organics, brickfragments, brown

FILL, lean clay and gravel, trace sand, brown

LEAN CLAY, trace gravel trace sand, brown, medium stiff

FAT CLAY, trace gravel, trace sand, gray, stiff

-fragments of shale and limestone from 18.5-20'

SHALE, with limestone layers, moderately severelyweathered, gray, very softBoring Terminated at 25 Feet

24

26

30

2.25(HP)

1.0(HP)

0.75(HP)

1.5(HP)

2-3-4N=7

13-7-9N=16

3-3-52N=55

5-5-8N=13

6-9-11N=20

6-10-18N=28

10-25-50/2"N=50/2"

100

55-21-34

152060.5

89

56

83

5

89

39

78

609.5

606.5

604

596.5

586.5

585

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH

Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic

See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12

611 Lunken Park DriveCincinnati, Ohio

CLIENT: Metropolitan Sewer District

Eight Mile Road Cincinnati, Ohio

PROJECT: Dry Run Sewers Phase 1 Contract8M

SITE:

Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

Advancement Method:3.25" Hollow Stem Auger

BORING LOG NO. B-1

Notes:

Project No.: N1125077

Boring Completed: 4/24/2012

Drill Rig: Truck Driller: JM

Boring Started: 4/24/2012

Page 1 of 1

Water encountered at 6' while drilling.

Water encountered at 10' after boring.

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data, (if any).

A-5Exhibit

See Exhibit A-4 for description of field procedures

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE

Surface Elev.: 610 (ft) DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

0.5

3.5

8.5

13.5

18.5

25.0

TOPSOILFILL, lean clay and gravel, trace sand, brown

LEAN CLAY, trace silt, small sand seams (<0.5"), brown,stiff

GRAVEL, with lean clay, trace sand, limestone fragments,brown, medium dense

LEAN CLAY, shale fragments, gray, hard

SHALE, severely weathered, very soft, gray

Boring Terminated at 25 Feet

26

27

20

2.0(HP)

1.5(HP)

1.0(HP)

4.5(HP)

5-8-7N=15

3-4-4N=8

1-2-5N=7

3-9-12N=21

5-8-11N=19

31-50/4"N=50/4"

43-50/4"N=50/4"

108

33-19-14

158054.9

89

100

89

83

100

100

100

612.5

609.5

604.5

599.5

594.5

588

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:



BORING LOG NO. B-2

Notes:





Page 1 of 1

Water encountered at 20' while drilling.




A-6Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

0.2

3.5

5.0

10.0

TOPSOILSAND AND GRAVEL, and lean clay, brown, mediumdense

SHALE, very severely weathered, very soft, brown andgraySHALE, severely weathered, very soft, gray, poor RQD,14% by length limestone


5-10-11N=21

23-17-50/5"N=50/5"

RQD=0%

78

100

58

618

614.5

613

608

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:



BORING LOG NO. B-3

Notes:



Drill Rig: Track Driller: Ratliff


Page 1 of 1

Water used in drilling below 5'.WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS



A-7Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

0.71.0

3.5

8.5

13.5

20.0

ASPHALTGRAVEL BASEFILL, lean clay, with gravel, trace sand, brown

LEAN CLAY, trace sand, trace silt, brown, stiff to very stiff

-limestone floaters at 6-7'

LEAN CLAY, with gravel, trace sand, light brown, hard

SHALE, moderately severely weathered, very soft, brownand gray


23

23

17

0.75(HP)

3.25(HP)

1.5(HP)

4.5(HP)

7-5-7N=12

6-4-5N=9

4-5-7N=12

11-6-7N=13

11-25-37N=62

15-26-50/5"N=50/5"

113158439.9

83

100

39

83

100

72

624.5624

621.5

616.5

611.5

605

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:

Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion andpatched at surface.


BORING LOG NO. B-4

Notes:





Page 1 of 1

No free water observedWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS



A-8Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

0.71.0

3.5

13.5

23.5

28.5

30.0

ASPHALTGRAVEL BASEFILL, gravel and sand, with lean clay, brown

LEAN CLAY, with gravel, trace sand, brown, hard

FAT CLAY, with gravel, trace sand, brown, very stiff

LEAN CLAY, fragments of shale and limestone, gray, verystiff

SHALE, with limestone layers, severely weathered, verysoft, brown and grayBoring Terminated at 30 Feet

22

14

17

24

23

4.5(HP)

4.5(HP)

4.0(HP)

2.25(HP)

3.75(HP)

32-25-15N=40

11-6-8N=14

7-12-10N=22

10-11-20N=31

5-4-9N=13

5-4-7N=11

3-6-13N=19

20-50/2"N=50/2"

49-21-28

83

56

89

100

89

5

100

100

641.5641

638.5

628.5

618.5

613.5

612

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:

Abandonment Method:Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion &patched at surface.


BORING LOG NO. B-5

Notes:





Page 1 of 1




A-9Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

3.0

5.0

18.5

23.5

28.5

35.0

FILL, asphalt, granular base

FILL, lean clay, with asphalt, brown

LEAN CLAY, with gravel, brown, stiff to hard

LEAN CLAY, limestone layers, trace silt, gray, hard

LEAN CLAY, with gravel, trace sand, trace silt, gray, stiff

SHALE, severely weathered, soft, brown and gray


21

13

12

13

1.5(HP)

2.5(HP)

4.5(HP)

4.5(HP)

1.0(HP)

35-50/5"N=50/5"

2-3-4N=7

3-5-6N=11

3-5-8N=13

3-13-17N=30

10-50/5"N=50/5"

5-5-8N=13

5-8-38N=46

10-11-28N=39

104

27-14-13

12.54647.5

67

11

100

100

100

33

100

100

100

658

656

642.5

637.5

632.5

626

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:



BORING LOG NO. B-6

Notes:





Page 1 of 1




A-10Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

0.2

8.5

18.5

32.0

38.8

TOPSOILLEAN CLAY, trace gravel, brown, medium stiff to stiff

SILT, gray, stiff

FAT CLAY, with gravel, gray, very stiff

-limestone floaters from 28.5-30'.

SHALE AND LIMESTONE, shale, completely weathered,very soft, gray, limestone, fresh, hard, gray

-approximately 29% shale by length

Boring Terminated at 38.8 Feet

20

19

29

30

25

21

22

21

0.5(HP)

1.75(HP)

1.0(HP)

2.0(HP)

2.0(HP)

3.0(HP)

3.0(HP)

2-2-2N=4

3-3-5N=8

3-3-3N=6

3-3-4N=7

3-5-8N=13

4-5-8N=13

5-9-14N=23

5-6-17N=23

RQD =0%

RQD =0%

103

42-22-20

153809.6

100

100

100

33

67

100

39

67

40

42

657

648.5

638.5

625

618

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:



BORING LOG NO. B-7

Notes:





Page 1 of 1

Water used in drilling below 32'.WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS



A-11Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

3.0

8.5

13.5

23.5

28.5

33.5

35.0

FILL, asphalt and granular base

FILL, lean clay, trace silt, trace sand, brown

FILL, lean clay and gravel, brown

SANDY SILT, gray, stiff

SILT, gray, very soft

SAND, with silt, gray, medium dense

SILT, gray, soft


24

22

27

31

30

0.75(HP)

1.5(HP)

1.0(HP)

1.0(HP)

<0.25

0.25(HP)

6-3-4N=7

3-3-4N=7

2-3-6N=9

6-7-9N=16

4-6-7N=13

3-4-7N=11

8-9-11N=20

5-6-6N=12

3-4-6N=10

100

89

100

89

89

0

100

67

100

647

641.5

636.5

626.5

621.5

616.5

615

LOCATION

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

DEPTH


See Exhibit A-2

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

SM

AR

T L

OG

-DE

PT

H T

O B

OT

TO

M O

F P

AG

E N

112

507

7 T

ES

T B

OR

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

12.G

DT

7/6

/12





SITE:



BORING LOG NO. B-8

Notes:





Page 1 of 1

Water encountered at 23.5' while drilling.




A-12Exhibit


WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

LAB

OR

AT

OR

YT

OR

VA

NE

/HP

(ps

f)

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

STRENGTH TEST

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

LL-PL-PI

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TE

ST

TY

PE

ST

RA

IN (

%)

CO

MP

RE

SS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

TH

(psf

)

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

SS

AM

PLE

TY

PE


PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

ELEVATION

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT A-14

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING



Exhibit B-1

Laboratory Testing Program Description

Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to measure natural water content and Atterberg Limits. Five unconfined compression tests were performed on cohesive split-barrel soil samples from test borings B-1, B-2, B-4, B-6, and B-7 and a hand penetrometer was used to estimate the approximate unconfined compressive strength of some samples. The hand penetrometer has been correlated with unconfined compression tests and provides a better estimate of soil consistency than visual examination alone. The test results are provided on the boring logs included in Appendix A and this Appendix. Descriptive classifications of the soils and bedrock indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the Explanation of Boring Log Information, the Unified Soil Classification System, and Description of Rock Properties included in Appendix C. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is included in Appendix C of this report. All classification was by visual-manual procedures. Selected samples were further classified using the results of Atterberg Limits testing. The Atterberg Limits test results are also provided on the boring logs.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTTerracon, Inc.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Project No.: N1125077Date Sampled: 5-15-12Remarks: Lab No. 3856

Figure

Client: METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT

Project: DRY RUN SEWERS PH 1 CONTRACT 8M

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 6-7.5'Sample Number: 3

Description: BROWN CLAY W/ROCK FRAGS, MOIST - STIFFLL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.70 Type: SS

Sample No.Unconfined strength, psfUndrained shear strength, psfFailure strain, %Strain rate, in./min.Water content, % Wet density, pcfDry density, pcfSaturation, %Void ratioSpecimen diameter, in.Specimen height, in.Height/diameter ratio

12061.21030.6

15.00.02726.0

126.5100.4103.40.67861.4602.7961.92

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ss, p

sf

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT B-2



Cincinnati, Ohio


Figure



Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 8.5-10'Sample Number: 5

Description: OLIVE GRAY LEAN CLAY, MOIST - VERY STIFFLL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.70 Type: SS


18063.74031.9

15.10.02720.1

129.3107.795.8

0.56561.3802.7902.02

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ss, p

sf

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT B-3



Cincinnati, Ohio


Figure




Description: BROWN LEAN CLAY W/ROCK FRAGS, MOIST - STIFFLL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.70 Type: SS


18447.94223.9

15.10.02717.4

133.2113.596.8

0.48541.3902.7902.01

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ss, p

sf

0

2500

5000

7500

10000

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT B-4

Tested By: SV Checked By: GS



Cincinnati, Ohio


Figure



Source of Sample: B-6 Depth: 6-7.5'Sample Number: 3

Description: BROWN SANDY LEAN CLAY W/TR. GRAVEL, MOIST - STIFFLL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.70 Type: SS


14647.52323.7

12.50.02721.4

126.3104.093.2

0.62061.3702.7902.04

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ss, p

sf

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT B-5

Tested By: SV Checked By: GS



Cincinnati, Ohio


Figure




Description: GRAY LEAN CLAY, MOIST - STIFFLL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.70 Type: SS


13708.01854.0

15.10.02724.8

125.0100.198.1

0.68321.3902.7902.01

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ss, p

sf

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

sttaluskie

Text Box

EXHIBIT B-6

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

< 20

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Plasticity Index

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Percent ofDry Weight

< 55 - 12> 12

TraceWithModifier

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

TraceWithModifier

Exhibit C-1

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

Auger

Shelby Tube

Loose

Medium Dense

Very Dense

10 - 29

4 - 9

19 - 58

500 to 1,000

less than 500

5 - 7 5 - 9

3 - 4

< 3

RingSamplerBlows/Ft.

< 30

30 - 49

> 119

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term

< 1515 - 29> 30

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Water InitiallyEncountered

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Major Componentof Sample

Percent ofDry Weight

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINEDSOILS

DescriptiveTerm

(Density)


Dense

> 50

30 - 50

_ 4,000 to 8,000

> 30

15 - 30

8 - 14

> 42

19 - 42

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,

field visual-manual procedures or standard penetrationresistance

SA

MP

LIN

G

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

(PID)

(OVA)

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG INFORMATION

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

7 - 18

59 - 98

> 99

DescriptiveTerm

(Consistency)

2,000 to 4,000

1,000 to 2,000

10 - 18

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Ring Sampler

Grab Sample

Split Spoon

Macro Core

Rock Core

No Recovery

Particle Size

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by

Standard Penetration ResistanceIncludes gravels, sands and silts.

StandardPenetration or

N-ValueBlows/Ft.

0 - 6Very Loose 0 - 3 Very Soft

Soft

Medium-Stiff

Stiff

Very Stiff

Hard

UnconfinedCompressive

Strength,Qu, psf

2 - 4

0 - 1


N-ValueBlows/Ft.


50 - 89

90 - 119

20 - 29

50 - 79

>79

DescriptiveTerm

(Consistency)


N-ValueBlows/Ft.

BEDROCK

Weathered

Firm

Medium Hard

Hard

Very Hard

30 - 49

> 8,000

Cr

CoarsMore on No

Fine-G50% oNo. 20

High

A BasB If fie

or bC Grav

gravgrad

D Sansandsand

E Cu =

F If soG If fin

iteria for Ass

se Grained Soilsthan 50% retaine

o. 200 sieve

Grained Soils: or more passes t00 sieve

hly organic soils

ed on the materield sample contaoulders, or both”vels with 5 to 12vel with silt, GW-ded gravel with sds with 5 to 12%d with silt, SW-Sd with silt, SP-SC

= D60/D10 Cc =

oil contains 15%nes classify as C

U

signing Grou

s: ed

Gravels: More than 5coarse fraction retaNo. 4 sieveSands: 50% or mofraction pasNo. 4 sieve

he

Silts and CLiquid limit

Silts and CLiquid limit

s:

al passing the 3-ined cobbles or b” to group name. % fines require dGC well-graded

silt, GP-GC poorly% fines require du

C well-graded saC poorly graded s

= 6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

% sand, add “withL-ML, use dual s

UNIFIED S

up Symbols a

50% of

ained on e

CL

GM

re of coarse sses e

CL

SM

Clays: less than 50

In

O

Clays: 50 or more

In

O

Primarily o

-in. (75-mm) sievboulders, or both

dual symbols: Ggravel with clay,y graded gravel w

ual symbols: SWand with clay, SPsand with clay

h sand” to groupsymbol GC-GM, o

SOIL CLA

and Group N

Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fine

Gravels with FinMore than 12% fin

Clean Sands: Less than 5% fine

Sands with FinesMore than 12% fin

norganic:

Organic:

norganic:

Organic:

organic matter, da

ve h, add “with cobb

W-GM well-grad GP-GM poorly with clay.

W-SM well-gradedP-SM poorly grad

name. or SC-SM.

ASSIFICA

ames Using

es C Cu 4 aCu 4 a

es: nes C

Fines claFines cla

es D Cu 6 aCu 6 a

s: nes D

Fines claFines ClaPI 7 anPI 4 or Liquid limLiquid limPI plots oPI plots bLiquid limLiquid lim

ark in color, and

bles

ded

d ded

H If fineI If soiJ If AttK If soi

graveL If soi

to groM If soi

“gravN PI 4O PI 4P PI ploQ PI plo

ATION SY

Laboratory T

nd 1 Cc 3 E nd/or 1 Cc 3

assify as ML or Massify as CL or Cnd 1 Cc 3 E nd/or 1 Cc 3

assify as ML or Massify as CL or Cnd plots on or abor plots below “A” lmit - oven dried mit - not dried on or above “A” lbelow “A” line mit - oven dried mit - not dried organic odor

es are organic, ail contains 15%terberg limits plotil contains 15 to 2el,” whichever is il contains 30%oup name. il contains 30%velly” to group na4 and plots on o4 or plots below ots on or above ots below “A” line

YSTEM

Tests A GS

E MH CH

E MH CH ove “A” line J line J

0.75

ine

0.75

add “with organic% gravel, add “wit

t in shaded area29% plus No. 20predominant.

% plus No. 200 pr

% plus No. 200, pame. r above “A” line. “A” line. “A” line. e.

E

Soil ClasGroup

Symbol G

GW Well-graGP Poorly gGM Silty graGC Clayey SW Well-graSP Poorly gSM Silty saSC Clayey CL Lean clML Silt K,L,M

OL OrganicOrganic

CH Fat clayMH Elastic

OH OrganicOrganic

PT Peat

c fines” to group nth gravel” to grou, soil is a CL-ML

00, add “with san

redominantly san

predominantly gra

Exhibit C-2

ssification

Group Name B

aded gravel F graded gravel F avel F,G, H gravel F,G,H aded sand I graded sand I nd G,H,I sand G,H,I ay K,L,M c clay K,L,M,N c silt K,L,M,O y K,L,M Silt K,L,M c clay K,L,M,P c silt K,L,M,Q

name. up name. , silty clay.

nd” or “with

nd, add “sandy”

avel, add

Exhibit C-3

GENERAL NOTES Description of Rock Properties

WEATHERING Fresh Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline. Very slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face show

bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline. Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 in. Joints may contain clay. In

granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer. Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars are dull

and discolored; some show clayey. Rock has dull sound under hammer and shows significant loss of strength as compared with fresh rock.

Moderately severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist’s pick.

Severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” clear and evident, but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock usually left.

Very severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” discernible, but mass effectively reduced to “soil” with only fragments of strong rock remaining.

Complete Rock reduced to ”soil”. Rock “fabric” not discernible or discernible only in small, scattered locations. Quartz may be present as dikes or stringers.

HARDNESS (for engineering description of rock – not to be confused with Moh’s scale for minerals) Very hard Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of

geologist’s pick. Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand specimen. Moderately hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to ¼ in. deep can be excavated by hard blow of point of

a geologist’s pick. Hand specimens can be detached by moderate blow. Medium Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in small

chips to pieces about 1-in. maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist’s pick. Soft Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces several inches in

size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure. Very soft Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1-in. or more in thickness can be

broken with finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.

Joint, Bedding and Foliation Spacing in Rock a Spacing Joints Bedding/Foliation

Less than 2 in. Very close Very thin 2 in. – 1 ft. Close Thin 1 ft. – 3 ft. Moderately close Medium 3 ft. – 10 ft. Wide Thick

More than 10 ft. Very wide Very thick

Rock Quality Designator (RQD) b Joint Openness Descriptors RQD, as a percentage Diagnostic description Openness Descriptor

Exceeding 90 Excellent No Visible Separation Tight 90 – 75 Good Less than 1/32 in. Slightly Open 75 – 50 Fair 1/32 to 1/8 in. Moderately Open 50 – 25 Poor 1/8 to 3/8 in. Open

Less than 25 Very poor 3/8 in. to 0.1 ft. Moderately Wide Greater than 0.1 ft. Wide

a. Spacing refers to the distance normal to the planes, of the described feature, which are parallel to each other or nearly so. b. RQD (given as a percentage) = length of core in pieces 4 in. and longer/length of run. References: American Society of Civil Engineers. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 56. Subsurface Investigation for Design

and Construction of Foundations of Buildings. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual.

geotechnical engineering report - socrata

Documents