Geotechnical_Report_0001.pdf

Final Geotechnical Report

Cuyahoga Valley National Park

Brandywine Creek Historic Culvert Rehabilitation

Summit County, OH

March 15, 2022

Prepared for:

National Park Service, Midwest Region

601 Riverfront Drive Omaha, NE 68102

By:

HDR

1917 S. 67th St.

Omaha, NE 68106

Brandywine Creek Historic Culvert Rehabilitation

March 15, 2022 | i

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

2 GEOLOGY AND OBSERVATIONS

2.1 Project Setting

2.2 Soil and Geologic Setting

2.2.1 Surficial Project Soils

2.2.2 Bedrock Geology

3 EXPLORATION

3.1 Site Reconnaissance

3.2 Subsurface Exploration

3.3 Laboratory Testing

4 FINDINGS

5 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Determination of Soil Parameters

5.2 Bearing Resistance

5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

5.4 Slope Stability

5.5 Design and Construction Considerations

6 LIMITATIONS

7 REFERENCES

Tables

Table 3-1: Summary of Borings

Table 5-1. Recommended Design Soil Strength Parameters

Table 5-2. Recommended Design Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

Table 5-3. Summary of Slope Stability Analyses

March 15, 2022 | ii

Appendices

Appendix A. Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B. Site Photos ............................................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Boring Logs .......................................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................... D-1

Grain Size Analysis with Hydrometer (ASTM D422) and Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) ...................... D-2

Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soils (ASTM D2166) ........................................... D-3

Direct Shear (ASTM D2850) ........................................................................................................... D-4

Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression (ASTM D2850).................................................. D-5

Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression (ASTM D4767) ..................................................... D-6

Appendix E. Analyses ................................................................................................................................E-1

Soil Strength Parameter Determination ...........................................................................................E-2

Bearing Capacity ..............................................................................................................................E-3

Lateral Earth Pressures ....................................................................................................................E-4

Slope Stability ...................................................................................................................................E-5

March 15, 2022 | i

This page is intentionally left blank.

March 15, 2022 | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the results of the geotechnical study performed by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) in support of the Brandywine Creek Historic Culvert Rehabilitation project within the

Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CUVA). This project involves the addition of a new culvert adjacent to the existing historic stone masonry arch culvert that conveys Brandywine Creek beneath the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail (Towpath).

The report includes the geotechnical information obtained from the borings and laboratory testing performed under this current study. The explorations, along with the laboratory test results are presented in more detail in Section 3 of this report as well as in Appendices C and D.

Based on HDR’s assessment of the borings, the generalized soil profile consists of predominantly cohesive alluvium, with localized areas of granular fill and alluvium encountered to a lesser extent.

Bedrock was not encountered within the explored depths. Further discussion on the encountered subsurface conditions is located in Section 4.

Based on review of the encountered subsurface conditions, the culvert should bear at elevation

632.0 or lower. Details of the engineering analyses are outlined in Section 5 and in Appendix E.

Design and construction considerations to assist in the development of the plans and culvert rehabilitation are also included in Section 5.

March 15, 2022 | 2

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of the geotechnical study performed by HDR Engineering, Inc.

(HDR) in support of the Brandywine Creek Historic Culvert Rehabilitation project within the

Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CUVA). This project involves the addition of a new culvert adjacent to the existing historic stone masonry arch culvert that conveys Brandywine Creek beneath the Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail (Towpath). The scope of work relative to this geotechnical exploration program included:

• a review of available soil and geologic information within the project area,

• site reconnaissance and performance of the geotechnical borings,

• laboratory testing on selected soil samples,

• characterization of a generalized soil profile along with development of the design soil strength parameters,

• geotechnical engineering evaluations and analyses, and

• the development of this report.

This report presents the descriptions and interpretations of the encountered subsurface conditions as they affect design and provides geotechnical recommendations to assist in the development of the plans and culvert rehabilitation.

2 GEOLOGY AND OBSERVATIONS

2.1 Project Setting

This project is located within northwestern Summit County, Ohio approximately 0.3-mile upstream of where Brandywine Creek enters the Cuyahoga River and where the Towpath crosses

Brandywine Creek (Exhibit No. 1 in Appendix A). The project site is located within a rural, wooded area of the park. The CUVA Bridle Trail runs adjacent to the Towpath at this location. Elevations through the project area range from about 641 to 650 along the top of the bank and above the culvert. Bank heights range from about 4 to 9 feet, with the edge of water at about El. 637. As of

November 2021, a sand and gravel bar rose about 2 feet above the water elevation on the upstream side of the culvert on the south side of the creek. The existing culvert is an approximately 94-foot long stone arch culvert with a 12.5-foot span and 4.5-foot rise. The approximate invert of the culvert is El. 632.5, but a portion has been filled in with sediment.

2.2 Soil and Geologic Setting

A review of the Physiographic Regions of Ohio map (Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 1998) indicates that the project site is located within the Killbuck-Glaciated Pittsburgh Plateau region of the Glaciated Allegheny Plateaus section of the Appalachian Plateaus province (Exhibit No. 2 in

Appendix A). The Killbuck-Glaciated Pittsburgh Plateau region is characterized by ridges and flat uplands generally above 1200 feet, covered with thin drift and dissected by steep valleys. Valley segments alternate between broad drift-filled and narrow rock-walled reaches. Elevations in this region generally range from 600 to 1505 feet above sea level. Soils in the Killbuck-Glaciated

Pittsburgh Plateau region consist of thin to thick Wisconsinan-age clay to loam till over

Mississippian and Pennsylvanian-age shales, sandstones, conglomerates, and coals. Glacial

March 15, 2022 | 3 lake basin/deposits associated with a series of lakes the occupied the Erie basin during the late

Pleistocene Epoch are also mapped within the park.

Thicknesses and types of surficial soils are mapped on the Surficial Geology of the Cleveland

South 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle map (Exhibit No. 3 in Appendix A). Surficial soils the site generally consist of about 20 feet of Holocene-age alluvium (a), underlain by 200 feet of

Wisconsinan-age silt and clay (LC) before encountering Devonian-age Ohio Shale. The alluvium consists of a wide variety of textures from silt and clay to boulders and commonly contains organics. It is often found within floodplains of modern streams. The silt and clay deposits are laminated to interbedded and may contain thin fine sand or gravel layers. It is often found as thick lakebed valley-fill deposits of high, proglacial predecessors of Lake Erie. The valley walls surrounding the project site are primarily comprised of these lacustrine deposits. However, patchy distributions of Wisconsinan-age sand and gravel deposits (SG) and Wisconsinan-age till (T) are also located along the slopes. These deposits are typically comprised of interbedded sand and gravel commonly containing thin, discontinuous layers of silt and clay. It is found in terraces and buried valleys and as beach-ridge deposits of high, proglacial predecessors of Lake Erie. The lacustrine silt and clay deposits are generally thicker upon the valley walls than at the project site located along the valley bottom. The Wisconsinan-age till is an unsorted mix of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders. Thicknesses should be considered to be a general representation of the area and may not exactly correspond to the conditions encountered in the borings.

2.2.1 Surficial Project Soils

The USDA Soil Survey of Summit County indicates the most prevalent surficial soil types within the project limits are the Lobdell silt loam (Le) and the Chagrin silt loam (Ck, alkaline). (See Exhibit

No. 4a.)

Soils of the Lobdell silt loam consist of 90 percent Lobdell and similar soils and 10 percent minor components, and are comprised of moderately well-drained silt loam and stratified sandy loam to silt loam. Soils of the Chagrin silt loam consist of 95 percent Chagrin and similar soils and 5 percent minor components, and are comprised of silt loam, loam, and channery sandy loam. All of these soils are derived from alluvium and loamy alluvium.

As shown on Exhibit Nos. 4b through 4d in Appendix A, the soil survey indicates the soils within the project area are considered to have low risk of corrosion to concrete, moderate to high risk of corrosion to steel, and have pH levels of 6.1 to 6.7.

2.2.2 Bedrock Geology

As shown on Exhibit No. 5 (Bedrock Geology Map), the bedrock geology mapped within the project area is the Devonian-age Ohio Shale (Doh). This local rock formation consists of carbonaceous to clayey, laminated- to thin-bedded shale containing fissile partings. It may also contain carbonate and/or siderite concretions in the lowermost 50 feet and exhibit a petroliferous odor. Bedrock elevations in the project area, as shown on Exhibit No. 6 (Bedrock Topography

Map), range from about El. 500 to 550, or 100 to 150 feet below existing grade. The project site appears to sit in the midst of a north flowing ancestral tributary of the Erigan River. This ancestral tributary occupied the same valley that the Cuyahoga River flows through today.

March 15, 2022 | 4

3 EXPLORATION

3.1 Site Reconnaissance

A geotechnical site reconnaissance of the project site was performed by HDR during the exploration program on November 4 and 5, 2021. A previous reconnaissance of the site was performed by HDR in August of 2020 during the scoping of this project. HDR also visited the site in February 2021 as part of the “CUVA Stabilize Riverbank at High Priority Areas along Towpath

Trail” for the National Park Service. Representative photos from the site are included in Appendix

B. The reconnaissance consisted of observations made while walking along the banks adjacent to Brandywine Creek and areas within the creekbed, and noting conditions at the existing culvert, soil types comprising the bank and creekbed, erosional features, and other notable features.

The project site is located in a rural setting located south of the Red Lock Trailhead off of W.

Highland Road. The Towpath and Bridle Trail cross over Brandywine Creek at the existing culvert and are comprised of a gravel/aggregate surface. Most of the riverbank is covered in trees, brush, or low-growing vegetation, including some large trees in the proposed culvert location. A fenced-off area labeled as containing hazardous waste was present adjacent to the southwest bank. The headwalls for the existing culvert were comprised of stacked sandstone blocks, though concrete had been installed on the outlet side. Erosion had occurred around the ends of the headwalls and caused displacement of stones near the end of the walls. Several cobble and boulder-sized rocks were present on the southeast bank near the end of the headwall, which appeared to comprise riprap that had been displaced due to erosion and water movement. The sandstone blocks generally ranged from about 36 to 68 inches wide, 8 to 38 inches deep, and 10 to 14 inches tall. The soil comprising the banks and creekbed was observed to consist of fine-grained silt and clay.

At the time of our site visit, the bank had been eroded to near-vertical in several places. A sand bar was present adjacent to the southeast bank, and the thalweg ran along the north bank upstream of the culvert. The bottom of the thalweg dropped about 4 to 5 feet near the culvert inlet and outlet, though the middle portion of the culvert had some sediment infill.

3.2 Subsurface Exploration

Three borings were drilled as part of the geotechnical exploration program to assess the subsurface conditions within the project limits. The locations of the test borings are shown on the

Boring Location Plan in Appendix C. The test borings were located and marked in the field by

SME and verified by HDR’s geotechnical staff. Some of the borings were later offset from their marked locations during drilling due to site accessibility. These as-drilled locations are reflected on the boring plan, boring logs and Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Summary of Borings

Boring Number Northing Easting Surface (El., ft) Bottom of Borehole (El., ft)

B1 591313.4890 2226207.9387 642.6 602.6

B2 591311.1847 2226281.0494 648.8 608.8

B3 591339.1949 2226334.4598 645.6 605.6

March 15, 2022 | 5

The borings were drilled by SME under the supervision of an HDR geotechnical engineer on

November 4 and 5, 2021 with a CME-550RT ATV-mounted drill rig. The drill rig was calibrated on

September 3, 2020 and had an energy ratio of 70%. All borings were drilled utilizing 3.75-inch internal diameter hollow stem augers to advance the borings to the explored depths. The sampling of the soils was accomplished in accordance with the Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, ASTM D 1586. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a typical 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration test (SPT) resistance or NSPT-value. The NSPT-value is then corrected to an energy ratio of 60%, termed N60, which is used for design.

Undisturbed soil samples were also collected at all of the borings in accordance with the “Standard

Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes”, ASTM D 1587. The depth of the undisturbed samples was determined by the HDR geotechnical engineer after review of the encountered subsurface conditions above the undisturbed sample depth or from that encountered in the nearby test borings.

3.3 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples were selected by HDR for laboratory testing to confirm the field classification and to assess the various engineering properties of the soils. Soil index testing was performed by SME and included 47 natural moisture content tests (per ASTM D 2216), 25

Atterberg limit determinations (per ASTM D 4318), and 25 grain size analyses (per ASTM D 422).

In addition to the soil index testing, 2 soil unconfined compression tests (per ASTM D 2166) and

2 direct shear tests (ASTM D 3080) were performed. Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs located in Appendix C and the individual laboratory sheets included in Appendix D.

4 FINDINGS

The generalized soil profile as encountered in the borings consists of predominantly cohesive alluvium, with localized areas of granular fill and alluvium encountered to a lesser extent. The strength of silt layers was described using density for non-plastic silts, and consistency for silts exhibiting a plasticity index.

Topsoil was encountered in all of the borings and ranged from 5 to 8 inches in thickness. Dense granular fill comprised of silty gravel with sand was encountered in Boring B2 to a depth of 3 feet.

Beneath the surficial material and fill, medium stiff to stiff brown silt (ML) was encountered to depths of 3 to 8.5 feet below existing grade. The N60-values ranged from 7 to 11 bpf. Below the medium stiff to stiff silt, very soft to soft lean clay (CL) and silty clay (CL-ML) was encountered to depths of 10.5 to 15.5 feet below existing grades. The N60-values ranged from 0 to 4 bpf. In

Borings B1 and B3, a layer of very loose to loose gray silty sand (SM) was encountered from depths of approximately 11 to 16 feet below existing grade. The N60-values ranged from 2 to 8 bpf. In the remainder of each boring, gray medium stiff/medium dense silt (ML) and medium stiff to stiff lean clay (CL) and silty clay (CL-ML) was encountered to the termination depths of the

March 15, 2022 | 6 borings at 40 feet below existing grade. The N60-values ranged from 6 to 18 bpf. Bedrock was not encountered within the depths explored.

Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings during drilling and/or at completion (after pulling augers, denoted as “0.5 hours after boring” on the logs) at depths of 6.5 to 20.3 feet below existing grades (El. 636.1 to 628.5). As the borings were sealed immediately upon completion given their locations near the Towpath, delayed water readings were not obtained. Groundwater depths and elevations encountered in the borings are tabulated on the boring logs in Appendix C.

Groundwater levels and possible perched water conditions can vary throughout the year depending on precipitation, stream levels, and other seasonal variations.

5 ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND

DISCUSSION

5.1 Determination of Soil Parameters

Soil parameters were developed primarily from laboratory tests, supplemented by published correlations with SPT data and plasticity indices, recorded pocket penetrometer readings, and our engineering experience and judgement. Testing on 2 undisturbed samples from the Mile Marker

20 site from the “CUVA Stabilize Riverbank at High Priority Areas along Towpath Trail” project site was included due to the proximity of the site and similarity in soil types. A summary of the strength parameters is provided in Table 5-1. Details of parameter development are located in

Appendix E.

Table 5-1. Recommended Design Soil Strength Parameters

Material Unit Wt. Undrained Shear Strength Drained Shear Strength γT (pcf) Su (psf) φ' (°) c’ (psf) φ' (°)

Riprap 135 0 38 0 38

Granular Base 130 0 34 0 34

Medium Stiff Brown Cohesive

115 900 0 100 22

Soft Gray Cohesive 110 225 0 30 19

Very Loose to Loose Brown and Gray Granular

125 0 29 0 29

Medium Stiff to Stiff Gray Cohesive

125 1100 0 190 22

5.2 Bearing Resistance

Calculations were performed to assess the bearing resistance of the underlying soils to support the new culvert. All three borings exhibited a layer of soft to very soft clay, with elevations ranging between approximately elevation 640.3 and 632.1. Given the extremely low bearing resistance available within this layer, the bearing resistance was computed considering the culvert bearing upon the underlying medium stiff clay or loose sands, with a bearing elevation no higher than El.

632.0. It is anticipated the bottom of the culvert will bear above this elevation near elevation 635

March 15, 2022 | 7 feet, and a platform of stone wrapped in geotextile will be used below the culvert to approximately

El. 632.0. Discussion of design considerations for the stone platform is discussed in Section 5.5.

A comparative check was performed between the bearing resistance directly on the medium stiff clay (representing Boring B2), and the bearing resistance with 2.4-foot thick layer of loose sands above the medium stiff clay (representing Borings B1 and B3) in accordance with AASHTO LRFD guidelines. The undrained shear strength for the medium stiff clay was considered to be 900 psf, based on an average N60 value of about 7 in the uppermost 7.5 feet below the culvert bearing elevation. Based on these assumptions, a factored bearing resistance of 2,350 pounds per square foot (psf) was computed for the culvert. These calculations are provided in Appendix E.

5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

Lateral earth pressure calculations have been performed considering the use of on-site soils as backfill behind the culvert headwalls, with the recommended parameters presented in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Recommended Design Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters

Case φ' (°) γT (pcf) Ko Ka

Horizontal Backslope1 22 125 0.42 0.59

2.5H:1V Backslope2 22 125 0.54 0.75

Notes:

1. For the horizontal backfill condition, the lateral earth pressure coefficients consider a maximum wall height of 15.5 feet.

2. For the sloping backfill condition, a broken-back slope angle of 2.5H:1V, wall height of 9 feet, slope height of 5 feet, and horizontal backslope distance of 12.5 feet was assumed based on the northeast wingwall configuration.

3. Parameters do not account for the inclusion of a drainage layer behind the wall.

5.4 Slope Stability

Analyses were performed for the northeast and southeast banks to determine the stability of the riverbanks where riprap is being added to the slopes. The northeast bank considered a 2.5H:1V inclination for the full height of the slope. The southeast bank considered a 2.5H:1V inclination from elevation 645 to 641, transitioning to a 1.5H:1V inclination below this elevation to the toe of slope/bottom of the stream channel. Above elevation 645, the inclination varies to tie into existing grade. A global stability analysis was also performed for a stacked concrete block retaining wall adjacent to the existing culvert headwall on the southeast bank considering a 2.5H:1V slope inclination behind the wall, and 1.5H:1V slope inclination in front of the wall.

The slope stability analyses were conducted for both short- and long-term strength conditions using a minimum target factor of safety of 1.3, and for rapid drawdown using a minimum target factor of safety of 1.1. The target factor of safety values were determined from guidance provided in Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1913, Design and Construction of Levees (2000) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as guidance provided by the Ohio

Department of Transportation (ODOT) in Geotechnical Bulletin 2 (GB-2) Special Benching and

Sidehill Embankment Fills (2000) and Geotechnical Engineering Design Checklists (2020). Water levels used in the short- and long-term stability models were based on either groundwater levels obtained during or after drilling, or elevations at the “edge of water” extents determined at the time of the survey (El. 638.1 on November 5, 2021). FEMA flood maps were also reviewed to establish the water levels for the rapid drawdown case. Specific flood levels have not been established

March 15, 2022 | 8 through the project area, but a flood elevation of 650 was mapped approximately 0.1 miles upstream of the culvert. As such, rapid drawdown water levels were considered to the top of the bank. A live load surcharge of 250 psf was also applied to the analyses across the width of the

Towpath for the southeast bank.

The northeast bank analyses considered a 3-foot thick layer of riprap and a 10-foot wide bench at the toe of the slope extending to El. 633. A 3-foot thick layer of riprap was also used in front of the stacked concrete block retaining wall on the southeast bank extending to the toe of slope/bottom of the stream channel (El. 632.5). The analyses also assume the concrete block wall is founded upon a granular base material as presented in Appendix E. For the southeast bank south of the stacked concrete block retaining wall, the riprap was thickened to 7.5-feet thick

(including the 0.5-foot thick layer of filter aggregate.) Table 5-3 summarizes the results of the slope stability analyses with computer output plots of the analyses presented in Appendix E. All of the analyses indicate the respective target factor of safety values were met.

Table 5-3. Summary of Slope Stability Analyses

Location Slope

Inclination Bank Height

(feet)

Factor of Safety

Meets Target FS?

Long-Term1 Short-Term1

Rapid Drawdown2

Northeast Bank 2.5H:1V 10 1.30 1.74 1.20 Meets Target FS

Southeast Bank 2.5H:1V/1.5H:1V3 16.5 1.37 1.41 1.32 Meets Target FS

Stacked Concrete Block Retaining Wall

2.5H:1V/1.5H:1V4 16.5 1.44 2.25 1.39 Meets Target FS

Notes:

1 Target FS = 1.3 2 Target FS = 1.1 3 Slope inclination of 2.5H:1V from El. 645.0 to El. 641.0, and 1.5H:1V from El. 641.0 to El. 632.5. Slope inclination varies above El.

645.0 to tie into existing grade.

4 Slope inclination of 2.5H:1V from El. 645.5 to existing grade, and 1.5H:1V from El. 641.0 to El. 632.5.

5.5 Design and Construction Considerations

The soils encountered throughout the project area contain varying amounts of fine-grained silts and clays. These soils are highly erodible, particularly when considering the stream velocities and maximum shear stresses as estimated by hydraulic modeling. Evidence of the significance of this erosion is noted in changes to the thalweg of Brandywine Creek between site visits, and erosion channels and near-vertical banks surrounding the culvert. Measures should be incorporated to reduce the effects of erosion upon these vulnerable slopes and protect both the new and existing culverts. As such, it is recommended that riprap or rock channel protection be applied to the slopes near the inlet and outlet headwalls. In addition to providing erosion protection, the riprap will serve as a buttress at the toe of the slope to meet the target factors of safety.

Analyses indicate that undercutting the soft clays beneath the culvert to expose the underlying medium stiff to stiff clays or loose granular soils increases the computed bearing resistance to

2350 psf. The undercut should extend to El. 632 or a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of culvert elevation, whichever is deeper, and a minimum of 2 feet beyond the planned width of the culvert. A woven geotextile fabric conforming to Section 712.09, Type D of the ODOT Standard

March 15, 2022 | 9

Specifications should be installed, at a minimum, along the bottom and sides of the undercut to provide additional strength at the base of the excavation and to serve as a separator between the granular backfill material and surrounding soils. The granular backfill should consist of ODOT

Item 203, Type C granular material or equivalent. Due to the location of the work site within the creek, the granular backfill will also serve as a working platform above the saturated silt and clay soils located in the bed of the creek. Dewatering should also be performed to lower the water table to a depth of 1 foot below the bottom of excavation. It is anticipated sump and pumping methods could be used, but more robust methods may be required during times of heavier flow.

Slopes of temporary open-cut excavations should be angled no steeper than 1.5H:1V. If steeper angles would be required to avoid existing infrastructure, temporary excavation support or shoring, such as trench boxes or sheetpile, should be used. Stockpiling of materials or long-term parking of equipment should not occur within 10 feet of the crest of excavations. Surface water should also be directed to drain away from excavations. Backfill of soil around the culvert and headwalls comprised of structural fill should be comprised of soils meeting USCS designations of

GW, GW-GM, GW-GC, SW, SW-SM, SW-SC, or CL, having a liquid limit less than 40, and a plasticity index less than 20. The structural fill should further be free of boulders and cobbles greater than 3 inches in any dimension, contain less than 5 percent organic matter, and be free of debris, frozen material, or other deleterious material. Structural fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts for standard compaction equipment, 4-inch loose lifts for hand-operated equipment, and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of standard Proctor (per ASTM

D698) or 95 percent of modified Proctor (per ASTM D1557), with moisture contents within 2 percent of optimum.

6 LIMITATIONS

This report documents the preliminary findings and conclusions of HDR Engineering, Inc., for the geotechnical aspects related to the planning and design of the Brandywine Creek Historic Culvert

Rehabilitation project in Summit County, Ohio. The report has been prepared for the use of the

National Park Service for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Any analyses or recommendations submitted are based on the field explorations performed at the locations indicated, on specific laboratory tests on individual samples taken during this exploration, and information obtained from outside sources. The report and analyses do not reflect variation that could occur between borings or at other points in time. Variations in conditions, if any, may become evident during the construction period, at which time, a re-evaluation of the recommendations may become necessary. In the event of such changes, the recommendations and changes should be reviewed by HDR’s geotechnical staff.

March 15, 2022 | 10

7 REFERENCES

United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service (2021); “Web

Soil Survey”. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geologic Survey, Pavey, R.R. et. al. (2002);

“Surficial geology of the Cleveland South 30x60-Minute quadrangle”.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geologic Survey, Larsen, G.E. and Slucher, E.R., (1996); “Reconnaissance bedrock geology of the Northfield, Ohio, quadrangle”.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geologic Survey, Vormelker, J.D. et. al.

(1997); “Bedrock topography of the Northfield, Ohio quadrangle”.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000); “Engineering Manual 1110-2-1913: Design and Construction of Levees”.

Ohio Department of Transportation, (2020); “Geotechnical Bulletin 2: Special Benching and Sidehill Embankment Fills”.

Ohio Department of Transportation, (2020); “Geotechnical Bulletin 7: Drilled Shaft Landslide Stabilization Design”.

Ohio Department of Transportation, (2020); “Geotechnical Engineering Design Checklists”.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, (2017); “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

March 15, 2022 | A-1

Appendix A. Exhibits

P ro je ct

B ra nd yw in e C re ek

H is to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n

C al cu la te d

A

K B

C h ec ke d

D M

V

E xh ib it

N o

. 1

S it e V ic in it y an d

T o p o g ra p h ic ap

Project Location je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n

C al cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 2

P h ys io g ra p h ic R eg io n s o f

O io

Reference:

Ohio Division of Geological Survey, 1998

Physiographic Regions of Ohio, Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n

C al cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 3

S u rf ic ia l G eo lo g y

• Title: Surficial geology of the Cleveland South 30 x 60 minute quadrangle

• Author(s): Pavey, R.R., Schumacher, G.A., Larsen, G..L., Swinford, E.M., and Vorbau, K.E.

• Publishing Organization: Ohio Division of Geological Survey

• Series and Number: Map Series SG-1

• Publication Date: 2002

Project Location

Numbers without modifiers following the lithology designator represent the average thickness of a lithology in tens of feet, with no number representing 10 feet. Parentheses indicate a unit has a patchy distribution and is missing in portions of that map-unit area. A minus sign following a number indicates the maximum thickness for that unit and the thickness decreases towards the edge of the map-unit. The letters, numbers, and modifiers are arranged vertically to depict the sequence of geologic units.

al cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 4 a

S o il

S u rv ey

S o il Ty p es je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 4 b

S o il

S u rv ey rr o si o n o f C o n cr et e

P ro je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 4 c

S o il

S u rv ey rr o si o n o f S te el je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 4 d

S o il

S u rv ey rr o si o n o f S te el je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n

C al cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 5

B ed ro ck

G eo lo g y

N

• Title: Reconnaissance bedrock geology of the Northfield, Ohio, quadrangle

• Author(s): Larsen, G.E., and Slucher, E.R.

• Publishing Organization: Ohio Division of Geological Survey

• Series and Number: Digital Map Series BG-2 Northfield

• Publication Date: 1996

Doh

Mbbd

Mbbd

Mc

Mc cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ib it

N o

. 6

B ed ro ck

T o p o g ra p h y je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n

Project Location

• Title: Bedrock topography of the Northfield, Ohio, quadrangle

• Author(s): Vormelker, J.D., Pavey, R.R., Larsen, G.E., and Vorbau, K.E.

• Publishing Organization: Ohio Division of Geological Survey

• Series and Number: Digital Map Series BT-3B Northfield

• Publication Date: 1997

March 15, 2022 | B-1

Appendix B. Site Photos

ABARATTA

Text Box Culvert inlet (Nov 2021)

Culvert inlet (Aug 2020)

Culvert inlet headwall (Nov 2021)

Bank next to culvert inlet headwall (Nov 2021)

Culvert inlet headwall (Aug 2020)

Riprap next to culvert inlet headwall (Nov 2021)

Riprap next to culvert inlet headwall (Aug 2020)

Upstream sand/gravel bar and culvert inlet (Nov 2021)

Culvert inlet and southeast bank on upstream side (Feb 2021)

Culvert inlet and southeast bank on upstream side (Feb 2021)

Upstream sand/gravel bar and culvert inlet (Aug 2020)

Upstream sand/gravel bar (Nov 2021)

Upstream sand/gravel bar and southeast bank (Nov 2021)

Upstream sand/gravel bar (Nov 2021)

Northeast bank on upstream side (Nov 2021)

Culvert inlet, northeast bank, and upstream sand/gravel bar (Aug 2020)

Upstream sand/gravel bar (Aug 2020)

Upstream sand/gravel bar (Aug 2020)

Culvert outlet (Nov 2021)

Culvert outlet (Aug 2020)

Culvert outlet and downstream sand/gravel bar (Aug 2020)

Northwest bank on downstream side (Nov 2021)

Culvert outlet and northwest bank on downstream side (Aug 2020)

Downstream sand/gravel bar (Nov 2021)

Downstream sand/gravel bar (Aug 2020)

Hazardous waste area and rusted pipe southeast of culvert (Nov 2021)

Planned alignment for new culvert south of existing culvert (Nov 2021)

March 15, 2022 | C-1

Appendix C. Boring Logs je ct

B ra nd yw in e C to ric

C ul ve rt

R eh ab ili ta tio n

C al cu la te d

A ec ke d

D ri n g L o ca ti o n P la

Noted silt seams

SB1

SB2

SB3

SB4

SB5

SB6

SB7

SB8

3ST9

SB10

SB11

SB12

7 inches of TOPSOIL

Sandy SILT- Trace Roots- Brown- Damp- Medium Stiff (ML)

Sandy Silty CLAY- Brown and Gray- Moist to Wet- Soft to Very Soft (CL-ML)

Silty SAND with Gravel- Gray- Wet- Loose (SM)

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Wet to Moist- Medium Stiff to Stiff

(CL)

0.6

3.0

10.5

16.0

DATE STARTED: 11/4/21 COMPLETED: 11/4/21

LOGGED BY: RM CHECKED BY: TPO

BORING METHOD: 3 3/4" Hollow-Stem Auger

RIG NO.: 525 (CME 550RT)DRILLER: RM/WI

GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. The in-situ transitions between materials may be gradual.

2. The colors depicted on the symbolic profile are solely for visualization purposes and do not necessarily represent the in-situ colors encountered.

PL MC LL

Auger Cuttings & Bentonite Chips

BACKFILL METHOD:

DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT)

AT END OF BORING: 605.6

6.5

37.0

8.0

636.1

634.6

DURING BORING:

.5 HOURS AFTER BORING:

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

LE

N

G

TH

(I N

C H

ES

(Continued Next Page)

BORING DEPTH: 40 FEET

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

HAMMER

EFFICIENCY: 70%

DATE: 9/3/2020

N60 --

10 20 30 40SP

T

BL

O

W S

PE

R

SI

X

IN

C

H

ES

BORING B1

1/

/2

2:

:2

P

M

PROJECT LOCATION: Northfield, Ohio

PROJECT NAME: Brandywine Creek Culvert PROJECT NUMBER: 087966.00

CLIENT: HDR, Inc.

DRY DENSITY

(pcf) --

90 100 110 120

MOISTURE &

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

10 20 30 40 REMARKS

TRIAXIAL (UU)

TORVANE SHEAR

HAND PENE.

UNC. COMP.

VANE SHEAR (PK)

VANE SHEAR (REM)

SHEAR

STRENGTH (KSF)

1 2 3 4SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

/N O

IN

TE

R

VA

LLATITUDE: 41.2859009 N

LONGITUDE: -81.5622571 W

ELEVATION: 642.56 FT

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS

Y M

B O

LI

C

P R

O F

IL

E

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

23 31

22 28

20 25

22 36

24 39

23 37

642.0

639.6

632.1

626.6

ABARATTA

Text Box Before pulling augers After pulling augers

SB13

SB14

SB15

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Wet to Moist- Medium Stiff to Stiff (CL) (continued)

Non-plastic SILT- Trace Sand- Gray- Moist to Wet- Medium Dense (ML)

END OF BORING AT 40.0 FEET.

33.5

40.0

LLMCPL

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

LE

N

G

TH

(I N

C H

ES

BORING DEPTH: 40 FEET

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

HAMMER

EFFICIENCY: 70%

DATE: 9/3/2020

N60 --

10 20 30 40SP

T

BL

O

W S

PE

R

SI

X

IN

C

H

ES

BORING B1

1/

:2

P

M

PROJECT LOCATION: Northfield, Ohio

PROJECT NAME: Brandywine Creek Culvert PROJECT NUMBER: 087966.00

CLIENT: HDR, Inc.

DRY DENSITY

(pcf) --

90 100 110 120

MOISTURE &

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

10 20 30 40 REMARKS

TRIAXIAL (UU)

TORVANE SHEAR

HAND PENE.

UNC. COMP.

VANE SHEAR (PK)

VANE SHEAR (REM)

SHEAR

STRENGTH (KSF)

1 2 3 4SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

/N O

IN

TE

R

VA

LLATITUDE: 41.2859009 N

LONGITUDE: -81.5622571 W

ELEVATION: 642.56 FT

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS

Y M

B O

LI

C

P R

O F

IL

E

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

609.1

602.6

Noted silt Seams

SB1

SB2

3ST3

SB4

SB5

SB6

SB7

SB8

SB9

SB10

3ST11

SB12

5 inches of TOPSOIL

FILL- Silty Gravel with Sand- Gray- Dry- Dense (GM)

SILT with Sand- Trace Roots- Brown- Moist- Medium Stiff (ML)

LEAN CLAY with Sand- Brown and Gray- Wet- Soft (CL)

Sandy LEAN CLAY- Brown and Gray- Wet- Very Soft to Soft (CL)

Sandy LEAN CLAY with Gravel- Brown and Gray- Wet- Medium Stiff (CL)

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Moist to Wet- Medium Stiff to Stiff

(CL)

0.4

3.0

8.5

10.5

15.5

18.0

DATE STARTED: 11/5/21 COMPLETED: 11/5/21

LOGGED BY: RM CHECKED BY: TPO

BORING METHOD: 3 3/4" Hollow-Stem Auger

RIG NO.: 525 (CME 550RT)DRILLER: RM/WI

GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. The in-situ transitions between materials may be gradual.

2. The colors depicted on the symbolic profile are solely for visualization purposes and do not necessarily

Chips

BACKFILL METHOD:

DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT)

AT END OF BORING: 614.3

15.5

34.5

20.3

633.3

628.5

DURING BORING:

.5 HOURS AFTER BORING:

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

LE

N

G

TH

(I N

C H

ES

(Continued Next Page)

BORING DEPTH: 40 FEET

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

HAMMER

EFFICIENCY: 70%

DATE: 9/3/2020

N60 --

10 20 30 40SP

T

BL

O

W S

PE

R

SI

X

IN

C

H

ES

BORING B2

1/

:2

P

M

PROJECT LOCATION: Northfield, Ohio

PROJECT NAME: Brandywine Creek Culvert PROJECT NUMBER: 087966.00

CLIENT: HDR, Inc.

DRY DENSITY

(pcf) --

90 100 110 120

MOISTURE &

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

10 20 30 40 REMARKS

TRIAXIAL (UU)

TORVANE SHEAR

HAND PENE.

UNC. COMP.

VANE SHEAR (PK)

VANE SHEAR (REM)

SHEAR

STRENGTH (KSF)

1 2 3 4SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

/N O

IN

TE

R

VA

LLATITUDE: 41.2858924 N

LONGITUDE: -81.5619912 W

ELEVATION: 648.77 FT

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS

Y M

B O

LI

C

P R

O F

IL

E

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

26 33

23 33

20 29

20 29

19 27

23 36

648.4

645.8

640.3

638.3

633.3

630.8

ABARATTA

Text Box

SB13

SB14

SB15

SB16

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Moist to Wet- Medium Stiff to Stiff (CL) (continued)

Silty CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Moist- Medium Stiff (CL-ML)

END OF BORING AT 40.0 FEET.

38.0

EC

O

VE

R Y

LE

N

G

TH

(I N

C H

ES

BORING DEPTH: 40 FEET

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

HAMMER

EFFICIENCY: 70%

DATE: 9/3/2020

N60 --

10 20 30 40SP

T

BL

O

W S

PE

R

SI

X

IN

C

H

ES

BORING B2

1/

:2

P

M

PROJECT LOCATION: Northfield, Ohio

PROJECT NAME: Brandywine Creek Culvert PROJECT NUMBER: 087966.00

CLIENT: HDR, Inc.

DRY DENSITY

(pcf) --

90 100 110 120

MOISTURE &

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

10 20 30 40 REMARKS

TRIAXIAL (UU)

TORVANE SHEAR

HAND PENE.

UNC. COMP.

VANE SHEAR (PK)

VANE SHEAR (REM)

SHEAR

STRENGTH (KSF)

1 2 3 4SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

/N O

IN

TE

R

VA

LLATITUDE: 41.2858924 N

LONGITUDE: -81.5619912 W

ELEVATION: 648.77 FT

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS

Y M

B O

LI

C

P R

O F

IL

E

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

22 36

610.8

608.8

SB1

SB2

SB3

SB4

SB5

SB6

SB7

SB8

SB9

SB10

SB11

SB12

8 inches of TOPSOIL

SILT with Sand- Trace Roots- Brown- Damp- Stiff (ML)

Sandy LEAN CLAY- Brown and Gray- Wet- Soft (CL)

Silty SAND with Gravel, Wood, and Organics- Brown- Wet- Very Loose to Loose (SM)

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Varved- Moist to Wet- Medium Stiff to Stiff (CL)

SILT- Trace Sand- Gray- Wet- Medium Stiff (ML)

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Varved- Moist- Medium Stiff (CL)

0.7

6.0

11.0

16.0

23.5

28.0

DATE STARTED: 11/4/21 COMPLETED: 11/4/21

LOGGED BY: RM CHECKED BY: TPO

BORING METHOD: 3 3/4" Hollow-Stem Auger

RIG NO.: 525 (CME 550RT)DRILLER: RM/WI

GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. The in-situ transitions between materials may be gradual.

2. The colors depicted on the symbolic profile are solely for visualization purposes and do not necessarily

Chips

BACKFILL METHOD:

DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT)

AT END OF BORING: 609.6

10.5

36.0

10.5

635.1

635.1

DURING BORING:

.5 HOURS AFTER BORING:

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

LE

N

G

TH

(I N

C H

ES

(Continued Next Page)

BORING DEPTH: 40 FEET

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

HAMMER

EFFICIENCY: 70%

DATE: 9/3/2020

N60 --

10 20 30 40SP

T

BL

O

W S

PE

R

SI

X

IN

C

H

ES

BORING B3

1/

:3

P

M

PROJECT LOCATION: Northfield, Ohio

PROJECT NAME: Brandywine Creek Culvert PROJECT NUMBER: 087966.00

CLIENT: HDR, Inc.

DRY DENSITY

(pcf) --

90 100 110 120

MOISTURE &

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

10 20 30 40 REMARKS

TRIAXIAL (UU)

TORVANE SHEAR

HAND PENE.

UNC. COMP.

VANE SHEAR (PK)

VANE SHEAR (REM)

SHEAR

STRENGTH (KSF)

1 2 3 4SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

/N O

IN

TE

R

VA

LLATITUDE: 41.2859677 N

LONGITUDE: -81.5617958 W

ELEVATION: 645.59 FT

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS

Y M

B O

LI

C

P R

O F

IL

E

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

24 34

21 30

21 29

23 32

26 39

20 29

644.9

639.6

634.6

629.6

622.1

617.6

ABARATTA

Text Box

3ST13

SB14

SB15

SB16

Silty CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Moist- Stiff (CL-ML)

LEAN CLAY- Trace Sand- Gray- Moist to Wet- Stiff (CL)

END OF BORING AT 40.0 FEET.

31.0

36.0

EC

O

VE

R Y

LE

N

G

TH

(I N

C H

ES

BORING DEPTH: 40 FEET

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F E

E T

HAMMER

EFFICIENCY: 70%

DATE: 9/3/2020

N60 --

10 20 30 40SP

T

BL

O

W S

PE

R

SI

X

IN

C

H

ES

BORING B3

1/

:3

P

M

PROJECT LOCATION: Northfield, Ohio

PROJECT NAME: Brandywine Creek Culvert PROJECT NUMBER: 087966.00

CLIENT: HDR, Inc.

DRY DENSITY

(pcf) --

90 100 110 120

MOISTURE &

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

10 20 30 40 REMARKS

TRIAXIAL (UU)

TORVANE SHEAR

HAND PENE.

UNC. COMP.

VANE SHEAR (PK)

VANE SHEAR (REM)

SHEAR

STRENGTH (KSF)

1 2 3 4SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

/N O

IN

TE

R

VA

LLATITUDE: 41.2859677 N

LONGITUDE: -81.5617958 W

ELEVATION: 645.59 FT

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS

Y M

B O

LI

C

P R

O F

IL

E

D E

P T

H

F E

E T

22 29

20 30

614.6

609.6

605.6

Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve.

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

Less than 5 percent……………………..……...GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent……………………..…….GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent……………...……..Cases requiring dual symbols

SP-SM or SW-SM (SAND with Silt or SAND with Silt and Grav-el)

SP-SC or SW-SC (SAND with Clay or SAND with Clay and Gravel)

GP-GM or GW-GM (GRAVEL with Silt or GRAVEL with Silt and Sand)

GP-GC or GW-GC (GRAVEL with Clay or GRAVEL with Clay and Sand)

If the fines are CL-ML:

SC-SM (SILTY CLAYEY SAND or SILTY CLAYEY SAND with Gravel)

SM-SC (CLAYEY SILTY SAND or CLAYEY SILTY SAND with Gravel)

GC-GM (SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL or SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL with Sand)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)

GRAVEL

More than 50% of coarse fraction larger than

No. 4 sieve size

Clean Gravel (Less than 5% fines)

GW

Well-graded gravel;

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP

Poorly-graded gravel;

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM

Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC

Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SAND

50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than

No. 4 sieve size

Clean Sand (Less than 5% fines)

SW

Well-graded sand; sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines

SP

Poorly graded sand;

sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines

Sand with fines (More than 12% fines)

SM

Silty sand; sand-silt-gravel mixtures

SC

Clayey sand; sand–clay-gravel mixtures

FINE-GRAINED SOIL

(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size)

SILT

AND

CLAY

Liquid limit less than

50%

ML

Inorganic silt; sandy silt or gravelly silt with slight plasticity

CL

Inorganic clay of low plasticity; lean clay, sandy clay, gravelly clay

OL

Organic silt and organic clay of low plasticity

SILT

AND

CLAY

Liquid limit

50% or greater

MH

Inorganic silt of high plasticity, elastic silt

CH

Inorganic clay of high plasticity, fat clay

OH

Organic silt and organic clay of high plasticity

HIGHLY

ORGANIC

SOIL

PT

Peat and other highly organic soil

Gravel with fines (More than 12% fines)

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

GW

D60 D30

CU = greater than 4; CC = between 1 and 3 D10 D10 x D60

GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

GM

Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4 Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbolsGC

Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7

SW

D60 D30

CU = greater than 6; CC = between 1 and 3 D10 D10 x D60

SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW

SM

Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4 Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbolsSC

Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)

PLASTICITY CHART

DRILLING AND SAMPLING ABBREVIATIONS

2ST –

3ST –

AS –

GS –

LS –

NR –

PM –

RC –

SB –

VS –

WS –

Shelby Tube – 2” O.D.

Shelby Tube – 3” O.D.

Auger Sample Grab Sample Liner Sample No Recovery Pressuremeter Rock Core diamond bit. NX size, except where noted Split Barrel Sample 1-3/8” I.D., 2” O.D., except where noted Vane Shear Wash Sample

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

WOH – Weight of Hammer WOR – Weight of Rods SP – Soil Probe PID – Photo Ionization Device FID – Flame Ionization Device

PARTICLE SIZES

Boulders Cobbles Gravel- Coarse

Fine Sand- Coarse

Medium Fine

Silt and Clay

- Greater than 12 inches

- 3 inches to 12 inches

- 3/4 inches to 3 inches

- No. 4 to 3/4 inches

- No. 10 to No. 4

- No. 40 to No. 10

- No. 200 to No. 40

- Less than (0.074 mm)

DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES

Parting – as much as 1/16 inch thick Seam – 1/16 inch to 1/2 inch thick Layer – 1/2 inch to 12 inches thick Stratum – greater than 12 inches thick Pocket – deposit of limited lateral extent Lens – lenticular deposit Hardpan/Till – an unstratified, consolidated or cemented mixture of clay, silt, sand and/or gravel, the size/shape of the constituents vary widely

Lacustrine – soil deposited by lake water Mottled – soil irregularly marked with spots of different colors that vary in number and size Varved – alternating partings or seams of silt and/or clay Occasional – one or less per foot of thickness Frequent – more than one per foot of thickness Interbedded – strata of soil or beds of rock lying between or alternating with other strata of a different nature

VISUAL MANUAL PROCEDURE

When laboratory tests are not performed to confirm the classifica-tion of soils exhibiting borderline classifications, the two possible classifications would be separated with a slash, as follows:

For soils where it is difficult to distinguish if it is a coarse or fine-grained soil:

SC/CL (CLAYEY SAND to Sandy LEAN CLAY) SM/ML (SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT) GC/CL (CLAYEY GRAVEL to Gravelly LEAN CLAY) GM/ML (SILTY GRAVEL to Gravelly SILT)

For soils where it is difficult to distinguish if it is sand or gravel, poorly or well-graded sand or gravel; silt or clay; or plastic or non-plastic silt or clay:

SP/GP or SW/GW (SAND with Gravel to GRAVEL with Sand) SC/GC (CLAYEY SAND with Gravel to CLAYEY GRAVEL with

Sand) SM/GM (SILTY SAND with Gravel to SILTY GRAVEL with

Sand) SW/SP (SAND or SAND with Gravel) GP/GW (GRAVEL or GRAVEL with Sand) SC/SM (CLAYEY to SILTY SAND) GM/GC (SILTY to CLAYEY GRAVEL)

CL/ML (SILTY CLAY)

ML/CL (CLAYEY SILT)

CH/MH (FAT CLAY to ELASTIC SILT) CL/CH (LEAN to FAT CLAY) MH/ML (ELASTIC SILT to SILT)

OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS

Topsoil Void Sandstone

Asphalt Concrete

Glacial Till Siltstone

Aggregate Base Coal Limestone

Portland Cement Concrete Shale Fill

CLASSIFICATION TERMINOLOGY AND CORRELATIONS

Cohesionless Soils

Relative Density N60 (N-Value) (Blows per foot)

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Extremely Dense

0 to 4 5 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 51 to 80 Over 81

Standard Penetration ‘N-Value’ = Blows per foot of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split barrel sampler, except where noted. N60 values as reported on boring logs represent raw N-values corrected for hammer efficiency only.

Cohesive Soils

Consistency N60 (N-Value)

(Blows per foot) Undrained Shear Strength (kips/ft2)

Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard

<2 2 - 4 5 - 8

9 - 15 16 - 30 > 30

0.25 or less > 0.25 to 0.50 > 0.50 to 1.0 > 1.0 to 2.0 > 2.0 to 4.0

> 4.0 or greater

CL

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

P I)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CH

A LINE

PI=0.73 (LL-20)

MH & OH

ML & OLCL-ML

DESCRIPTION OF RELATIVE QUANTITIES

The visual-manual procedure uses the following terms to describe the relative quantities of notable foreign materials, gravel, sand or fines:

Trace – particles are present but estimated to be less than 5% Few – 5 to 10% Little – 15 to 25% Some – 30 to 45% Mostly – 50 to 100%

March 15, 2022 | D-1

Appendix D. Laboratory Testing

March 15, 2022 | D-2

Grain Size Analysis with Hydrometer (ASTM D422) and Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)

ASTM D422

Project: Brandywine Creek Culvert Location: Northfield, OH Project #: 087966.00 A-4a Test Date: (8)

Sieve # Sieve size, mm

Percent

Passing

Percent

Passing

3" 75 100.0 72.9 2" 50 100.0 65.5

1-1/2" 37.5 100.0 26.8

1" 25 100.0 18.4 3/4" 19 100.0 3/8" 9.5 100.0

#4 4.75 100.0 LIQUID LIMIT 31

#10 2 99.5 PLASTIC LIMIT 23

#40 0.43 96.9 PLASTICITY INDEX 8

#100 0.15 87.0 #200 0.074 72.9

#270 0.053 65.5 D10 NA mm

D30 0.008 mm

D60 0.039 mm

Device Cc NA

Cu NA

Time in Agent

SHAPE

HARDNESS

LAB-11 (12)

0.074 mm

0.053 mm

0.005 mm

0.0013 mm

SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

Particle Size

OHIO Modified

AASHTO

Sandy silt

November 12, 2021

Sample #: SB1 Sample Location B-1; 1' - 2.5'

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

WITH HYDROMETER

PROJECT INFORMATION SAMPLE INFORMATION

ASTM Description Sandy SILT ML

16 Hours

ATTERBERG LIMITS

PARTICLE DISTRIBUTION

SAND…