table of contents i. ii. iii. iv. v....table of contents i. ii. iii. centerline cuts (soil cuts,...

Table of Contents

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

Preface

Geotechnical design features that arise in the development of roadway projects vary both in type and

complexity. Cuts, embankments, wetlands, mine issues, and rock slopes are just some geotechnical issues

encountered on transportation projects. Consistent and comprehensive reconnaissance, analysis, and plan

preparation are necessary to ensure that all possible geotechnical issues that may occur on a project will be

adequately identified and accounted for on the final plans.

A set of topical review checklists, a reference list, and a technical publications list have been developed to aid

the project development personnel in their production of geotechnically sound project plans. All projects that

contain geotechnical related issues will benefit from the use of this document. Although it is expected that the

District Geotechnical Engineer will be one of the main users of these checklists, any personnel responsible for

a geotechnical aspect of the project plan development will use this document. Possible users of this checklist

include, but are not limited to, design and geotechnical Consultants and District and Central Office Planning

and Production staff.

The design checklists are provided to assist the project development personnel in:

■ Developing a comprehensive geotechnical scope of services

■ Developing and reviewing geotechnical reports and assimilating information

■ Analyzing, designing, and reviewing geotechnical related aspects of a transportation project, including

needs assessment, plans, and specifications

■ Recognizing cost-saving opportunities

■ Identifying deficiencies due to inadequate geotechnical investigation, analysis, or design

■ Recognizing when to request additional technical assistance from a geotechnical specialist

■ Defining areas of needed training

At first glance, the design checklist will seem to be inordinately lengthy. One, however, should not avoid using

the checklist because of this. Only on major and complex projects will it be necessary to complete most of the

checklist. Just those checklists that pertain to a specific geotechnical feature encountered on the project

should be completed. Therefore, for most projects, only a small portion of the checklist will need to be

completed.

Since several entities may be involved in the geotechnical development of a transportation project, it is

possible that there may be more than one set of checklists completed for a specific project, or different entities

may fill out different sections of the checklist. It is anticipated that all completed checklists will be included with

the project file in District or Central Office.

To utilize the checklists,

■ First fill out the project information on the Checklist Cover tab. The project information in the headings of

the rest of the checklists will autopopulate. Also indicate which checklists will be utilized.

■ Complete only the checklists that apply to the project by using the dropdown boxes.

■ Submit the checklist cover along with all completed checklists with the report and plan submission

Additional topics and questions may be added as the development of these checklists continues and input is

received from the users. All additional updates, bulletins, and design guidance will be issued from the Office

of Geotechnical Engineering and available on the internet at the Design Reference Resource Center. The

Administrator of the Office of Geotechnical Engineering will be the point of contact regarding the checklist,

and any questions, recommendations, and training requests should be directed to the Office Administrator.

Table of Contents

I.

II.

III.

Centerline Cuts

(Soil Cuts, Rock Slopes)

Embankments

(Settlements, Stability, Sidehill Fills, Special)

IV.

Foundations of Structures

(Soil and Bedrock Strength Data, Spread Footing, Pile Structures, Drilled Shafts)

Retaining Wall

(Soil Data and Preliminary Calculations, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)

V.

Landslide Remediation

(Investigation, Analysis, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)

Rockfall Remediation


Wetland or Peat Remediation


Underground Mine Remediation


Surface Mine Remediation


Karst Remediation


VI.

Soil Profile

(General Presentation, Cover Sheet, , Plan and Profile, Boring Logs)

Geotechnical Reports

(General Presentation)

VII. References

F.

Submission Requirements Checklists

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

B.

B.

C.

B.

Geologic Hazard Design Checklists

A.

Subgrade

Structural Design Checklists

A.

Preface

Checklist Cover

Reconnaissance and Planning Checklist

General Earthwork Design Checklists

A.

Symbols and Abbreviations

Yes

No

Not Applicable (Reason should be explained in the “Notes” area of the checklist)

Selected item utilized

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program, DMRM, ODNR

Manual for Abandoned Underground Mine Inventory and Risk Assessment, ODOT

Bridge Design Manual, ODOT

California Bearing Ratio

Construction and Material Specifications, ODOT

District Geotechnical Engineer, ODOT District

Division of Geological Survey, ODNR

Division of Mineral Resources Management, ODNR

Division of Soil and Water Conservation, ODA

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Highway Administration

Factor of Safety

Geotechnical Bulletin, OGE (Always followed by the applicable number (e.g., GB4))

Location & Design Manual, Volume 1, ODOT

Location & Design Manual, Volume 3, ODOT

Load and Resistance Factor Design

Standard Penetration Value, normalized to 60 percent of drill rod energy ratio

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Ohio Department of Transportation

Office of Geotechnical Engineering, ODOT

Office of Surface Mining Reclaimation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior

Right of Way

Rock Quality Designation

Slake Durability Index

Specifications for Geotechnical Explorations, ODOT

Standard Penetration Test

Transportation Information Mapping System, ODOT

Ultimate Bearing Value

U.S. Geological Survey

Wave Equation Analysis of Pile Driving (Software)

DSWC

SDI

SGE

SPT

TIMS

UBV

DGS

DMRM

EPA

N60

ODNR

ODOT

OGE

OSMRE

ROW

RQD

FHWA

F.S.

GB

L&D1

L&D3

LRFD

USGS

WEAP

AASHTO

AML

AUMIRA

BDM

CBR

C&MS

DGE

Y

N

X

✔

I. Geotechnical Design ChecklistsProject: PDP Path:

PID: Review Stage:

Checklist

II. Reconnaissance and Planning

III. A. Centerline Cuts

III. B. Embankments

III. C. Subgrade

IV. A. Foundations of Structures

IV. B. Retaining Wall

V. A. Landslide Remediation

V. B. Rockfall Remediation

V. C. Wetland or Peat Remediation

V. D. Underground Mine Remediation

V. E. Surface Mine Remediation

V. F. Karst Remediation

VI. A. Soil Profile

VI. D. Geotechnical Reports

Included in This

Submission

II. Reconnaissance and Planning ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

Reconnaissance (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

Planning - General (Y/N/X) Notes:

5

6

7

8

9

In planning the geotechnical exploration

program for the project, have the specific

geologic conditions, the proposed work, and

historic subsurface exploration work been

considered?

Have the topography, geologic origin of

materials, surface manifestation of soil

conditions, and any other special design

considerations been utilized in determining the

spacing and depth of borings?

Have the borings been located so as to provide

adequate overhead clearance for the

equipment, clearance of underground utilities,

minimize damage to private property, and

minimize disruption of traffic, without

compromising the quality of the exploration?

Have the borings been located to develop the

maximum subsurface information while using a

minimum number of borings, utilizing historic

geotechnical explorations to the fullest extent

possible?

Have all the features listed in Section 302.3 of

the SGE been observed and evaluated during the

field reconnaissance?

Have the resources listed in Section 302.2.1 of

the SGE been reviewed as part of the office

reconnaissance?

Roadway plans

Structures plans

Geohazards plans

If notable features were discovered in the field

reconnaissance, were the GPS coordinates of

these features recorded?

Has the ODOT Transportation Information

Mapping System (TIMS) been accessed to find all

available historic boring information and

inventoried geohazards?

Based on Section 302.1 in the SGE, have the

necessary plans been developed in the following

areas prior to the commencement of the

subsurface exploration reconnaissance:

II. Reconnaissance and Planning Checklist

Planning - General (Y/N/X) Notes:

10

a.

b.

c.

Planning – Exploration Number (Y/N/X) Notes:

11

12

13 When referring to historic explorations that did

not use the identification scheme in 12 above,

have the historic explorations been assigned

identification numbers according to Section

303.2 of the SGE?

Has each exploration been assigned a unique

identification number, in the following format X-

ZZZ-W-YY, as per Section 303.2 of the SGE?

exploration identification number

location by station and offset

estimated amount of rock and soil, including

the total for each for the entire program.

The schedule of borings should present the following

information for each boring:

Have the coordinates, stations and offsets of all

explorations (borings, probes, test pits, etc.)

been identified?

Have the scaled boring plans, showing all project

and historic borings, and a schedule of borings in

tabular format, been submitted to the District

Geotechnical Engineer?

II. Reconnaissance and Planning Checklist

Planning – Boring Types (Y/N/X) Notes:

14 Based on Sections 303.3 to 303.7.6 of the SGE,

have the location, depth, and sampling

requirements for the following boring types

been determined for the project?

Structure Borings (Type E)

Bridges (Type E1)

Culverts (Type E2 a,b,c)

Retaining Walls (Type E3 a,b,c)

Noise Barrier (Type E4)

CCTV & High Mast Lighting Towers

(Type E5)

Buildings and Salt Domes (Type E6)

Lakes, Ponds, and Low-Lying Areas (Type C1)

Peat Deposits, Compressible Soils, and Low

Strength Soils (Type C2)

Uncontrolled Fills, Waste Pits, and Reclaimed

Surface Mines (Type C3)

Underground Mines (C4)

Landslides (Type C5)

Karst (Type C7)

Proposed Underground Utilities (Type D)

Geohazard Borings (Type C)

Roadway Borings (Type B)

Sidehill Cut-Fill Sections (Type B4)

Sidehill Fill Sections on Unstable Slopes (Type

B5)

Rockfall (Type C6)

Check all boring types utilized for this project:

Existing Subgrades (Type A)

Embankment Foundations (Type B1)

Cut Sections (Type B2)

Sidehill Cut Sections (Type B3)

III.A. Centerline Cuts ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

Soil Cuts (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

5

6

a.

b.

Rock Slopes (Y/N/X) Notes:

For rockfall and additional design considerations, see the “Rockfall Remediation Checklist.”

7

8

9

10

Did the design consider the construction or

long term ramifications of cutting below the

water table?

Did the design consider additional drainage in

the cut slope (springs / seeps) and roadway

base?

Has the subsurface exploration adequately

characterized the rock in accordance with the

Geotechnical Bulletin 3: Rock Cut Slope and

Catchment Design (GB 3)?

Have erosion protection measures been

addressed for backslopes, side slopes, and

ditches (including riprap recommendations or

special slope treatments)?

If there is a “red bed” or other historically

unstable soil or rock layer through the cut

slopes, was this layer considered as a possible

failure zone?

If the cut is not completely above the water

table,

Have issues related to any special usage of

excavated soils been addressed?

In accordance with GB 3, has the rockfall

catchment software analysis output and the cost

analysis comparing catchment configurations

been provided?

In accordance with GB 3, are the rock cut slopes,

benches, and catchment areas indicated on all

appropriate cross-sections?

Have the slope angles, benching scheme, rockfall

catchment design, and drainage controls been

determined as prescribed in GB 3?

Do the cut slopes have a minimum stability F.S.

of 1.30 and are not steeper than 2:1? Indicate

which program and which analysis method

(Spencer, Bishop, etc) was used.

If you do not have a centerline cut on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Does drilling provide continuous stratigraphic

sections for the range of elevations that

represent proposed cut slope areas?

III.B. Embankments ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

Settlement (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Has a method been chosen as a solution to the

settlement issues?

Check the method(s) used:

lowering proposed grade / change alignment

lightweight fill

other (describe other methods)

surcharge (preloading)

removal and replacement of weak soil

waiting periods with monitoring

drainage blanket and wick drains

If total settlement or time of consolidation is

unacceptable, have the stations and lateral

extent of the problem areas been defined?

Have consolidation properties of the foundation

soils been determined?

If you do not have an embankment on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

If soil conditions and project requirements

warrant, have settlement issues been

addressed?

If not applicable (X), go to Question 14

Check methods used:

empirical correlations with moisture content

and Atterberg values


laboratory consolidation tests

Have calculations been performed to estimate

the total expected embankment settlement and

the time of consolidation? Indicate method

used.

Have the total settlement and the time of

consolidation analyses indicated acceptable

values at all locations for the scope of the

embankment work?

If differing foundation soil and/or loading

conditions occur throughout the embankment

area, have sufficient analyses been completed to

evaluate consolidation at locations

representative of the most critical conditions?

III.B. Embankments Checklist

Settlement (Y/N/X) Notes:

8

9

10

11

12

13

Stability (Y/N/X) Notes:

14

15

16

Has the total (short term) and effective (long

term) shear strength of the foundation soils

been determined?

Has the effect of any foundation soil

consolidation (including differential settlement)

been evaluated with regard to adjacent

structures (e.g., bridges, buildings, culverts,

utilities) which will also undergo settlement and

be subject to stresses induced by the

consolidation of the surrounding soil?

Has an economic analysis been performed to

evaluate the cost benefits of the recommended

solution compared to others?

Based on accepted design practices, and where

applicable, adhering to published guidelines and

design recommendations from FHWA, have

calculations been performed to evaluate the

effectiveness of the chosen solution(s)?

Have the effects of the predicted settlement and

the chosen solution been determined and

accounted for on the construction schedule?

Have the need, locations, type, plan notes, and

reading schedule for settlement platforms or

cells been determined?

Have all necessary notes, specifications, and

details for the chosen solution been

determined?

Check method used:

laboratory shear tests

estimation from SPT or field tests


warrant, have stability issues been addressed?


Have the values of shear strength for proposed

embankment fill material, as determined from

Geotechnical Bulletin 2 Special Benching and

Sidehill Embankment Fills (GB2), been used in

the stability analyses?



17

18

a.

b.

c.

d.

19

20

21

22

23

Has a method been chosen as a solution to the

stability issues?



design recommendations from FHWA, have

calculations been performed to evaluate the

effectiveness of the chosen solution(s)?

Has an economic analysis been performed to

evaluate the cost benefits of the recommended

solution compared to others?

drainage blanket and wick drains

removal of soft soil, adding shear key

reduced grade / change alignment

staged construction

controlled rate of fill placement

drilled shaft slope stabilization


flattening slopes

counterberm

lightweight embankment

reinforced soil slope

soil nailing

When differing soil or loading conditions occur

throughout the embankment area, have

sufficient analyses been completed to evaluate

the stability at locations representative of the

most critical conditions?

Have the following F.S. been met or exceeded,

as determined by the calculations, for the given

stability conditions:

1.30 for short term (undrained) condition

1.30 for long term (drained) condition

Have calculations been performed to determine

the F.S. for stability? Indicate which program and

which analysis method (Spencer, Bishop, etc)

was used.

Check the method(s) used:

1.10 for rapid drawdown, flood condition

1.50 for embankment containing or supporting

a structural element

If the F.S. was not met or exceeded, have the

stations and lateral extent of the problem areas

been defined?



24

25

26

27

28

Sidehill Fills (Y/N/X) Notes:

29

30

31

a.

b.

c.

32

33 Have subsurface drainage controls been

adequately addressed?

Have water bearing zones been identified and

their impact addressed?


warrant, have sidehill fill issues been addressed?


has Plan Note G109 from L&D3 been included

in the General Notes?

have quantities for both excavation and

embankment been calculated for the benched

areas and added to the plan General

Quantities?

have the special benching or shear keys been

indicated on the appropriate cross sections?

In accordance with Geotechnical Bulletin 2:

Special Benching and Sidehill Embankment Fills

(GB 2), have sidehill fills been evaluated to

determine if special benching or shear keys are

needed?

In accordance with GB 2, if special benching or

shear keys are required,

If piezometers will be used, has the critical

pressure value been determined and the

appropriate information included in the plans?

Have the effects of the stability solution been

determined and accounted for on the

construction schedule?

Has the effect of the stability solution been

evaluated with regard to structures (e.g.,

bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) which may

be subject to unusual stresses or require special

construction considerations?

Have all necessary notes, specifications, and

details for the chosen solution been

determined?

Have the need, location, type, plan notes, and

reading schedule for piezometers and

inclinometers been determined?


Special (Y/N/X) Notes:

34

35

a.

b.

c.

d.

has the height of fill to be end dumped been

determined?

have all notes and specifications for end

dumping been developed?

If an embankment is to be placed through

standing water or over weak, wet soils (with or

without a fabric separator), the fill should be

placed by the method of end dumping to a given

height above the standing water or until

compaction is achievable over the soft soil. If

end dumping is to be specified,

has the need for a fabric separator or filter

layer been determined?

Have all of the environmental factors, including

wetlands, stream mitigation, and landfills, been

considered and incorporated prior to design and

analysis of embankment settlement and

stability, including EPA or other government

agencies’ involvement, mitigation, or special

design or construction considerations?

has the material type for the fill to be end

dumped been specified?

III.C. Subgrade ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

Subgrade (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

2

a.

3

a.

If there is any rock, shale, or coal present at the

proposed subgrade (C&MS 204.05), do the plans

specify the removal of the material?

If removal of any rock, shale, or coal is

required, have the station limits, depth, and

lateral limits for the planned removal of the

material at proposed subgrade been provided?

Has the subsurface exploration adequately

characterized the soil or rock according to

Geotechnical Bulletin 1: Plan Subgrades (GB1)?

Has each sample been visually classified and

inspected for the presence of gypsum? Has a

moisture content been performed on each

sample?

Has mechanical classification (Plastic Limit (PL),

Liquid Limit (LL), and gradation testing) been

done on at least two samples from each boring

within six feet of the proposed subgrade?

Have A-2-5, A-4b, A-5, A-7-5, A-8a, or A-8b soils

within the top 3 feet of the proposed subgrade

been mechanically classified?

Has the sulfate content of at least one sample

from each boring within 3 feet of the proposed

subgrade been determined, per Supplement

1122, Determining Sulfate Content in Soils?

If you do not have any subgrade work on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Has the sulfate content of all samples that

exhibit gypsum crystals been determined?

If soils classified as A-2-5, A-4b, A-5, A-7-5, A-8a,

or A-8b, or having a LL>65, are present at the

proposed subgrade (soil profile), do the plans

specify that these materials need to be removed

and replaced or chemically stabilized?

If these materials are to be removed and

replaced, have the station limits, depth, and

lateral limits for the planned removal been

provided?

III.C. Subgrade ChecklistSubgrade (Y/N/X) Notes:

4

a.

b.

5

6

7

8

Has an appropriate quantity of Proof Rolling

(C&MS 204.06) and has Plan Note G111 from

L&D3 been included in the plans?

If drainage or groundwater is an issue with the

proposed subgrade, has an appropriate drainage

system (e.g., pipe, underdrains) been provided?

If removal and replacement has been specified,

do the plans include Plan Note G121 from L&D3?

If chemical stabilization is applicable, has the

detail of this treatment been shown on the

plans, including depth, percentage of chemical,

station limits, lateral extent, and plan notes?

Has a design CBR value been provided?

cement stabilization

Indicate type of chemcial stabilization specified:

lime stabilization

In accordance with GB1, do the SPT (N60)/HP

values and existing moisture contents for the

proposed subgrade soils indicate the need for

subgrade stabilization?

If removal and replacement is applicable, has

the detail of subgrade removal been shown on

the plans, including depth of removal, station

limits, lateral extent, replacement material,

and plan notes (Item 204 - Subgrade

Compaction and Proof Rolling)?

IV.A Foundations of Structures ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

Soil and Bedrock Strength Data (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

Spread Footings (Y/N/X) Notes:

4

5

a.

6

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

7

a.

8

9

Has the shear strength of the foundation

bedrock been determined?

eccentric load limitations (overturning)?

Has the shear strength of the foundation soils

been determined?

Check method used:



Check method used:



Have sufficient soil shear strength,

consolidation, and other parameters been

determined so that the required allowable loads

for the foundation/structure can be designed?

If you do not have such a foundation or structure on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Were representative sections analyzed for the

entire length of the structure for the following:

factored bearing resistance?

factored sliding resistance?

predicted settlement?

Are there spread footings on the project?

If no, go to Question 11

Have the recommended bottom of footing

elevation and reason for this recommendation

been provided?

Has the recommended bottom of footing

elevation taken scour from streams or other

water flow into account?

If needed, have the details been included in

the plans?

If special conditions exist (e.g. geometry, sloping

rock, varying soil conditions), was the bottom of

footing “stepped” to accommodate them?

Have the Service I and Maximum Strength Limit

States for bearing pressure on soil or rock been

provided?

overall (global) stability?

Has the need for a shear key been evaluated?

IV.A Foundations of Structures Checklist

Spread Footings (Y/N/X) Notes:

10

a.

Pile Structures (Y/N/X) Notes:

11

12

13

14

15

16

a.

b.

c.

d.

Has an appropriate pile type been selected?

Check the type selected:

H-pile (driven)

H-pile (prebored)

Cast In-place Reinforced Concrete Pipe

other (describe other types)

If weak soil is present at the proposed

foundation level, has the removal / treatment of

this soil been developed and included in the

plans?

Have the procedure and quantities related to

this removal / treatment been included in the

plans?

Are there piles on the project?

If no, go to Question 17

Micropile

Continuous Flight Auger (CFA)

If scour is predicted, has pile resistance in the

scour zone been neglected?

If required for design, have sufficient soil

parameters been provided and calculations

performed to evaluate the:

Nominal unit side resistance for each

contributing soil layer and maximum deflection

of the piles?

Nominal unit tip resistance and maximum

settlement of the piles?

Have the estimated pile length or tip elevation

and section (diameter) based on either the

Ultimate Bearing Value (UBV) or the depth to

top of bedrock been specified? Indicate method

used.

Has a wave equation drivability analysis been

performed as per BDM 305.4.1.2 to determine

whether the pile can be driven to either the

UBV, the pile tip elevation, or refusal on bedrock

without overstressing the pile?

Downdrag load on piles driven through new

embankment or compressible soil layers, as

per BDM 305.4.2.2?

Potential for and impact of lateral squeeze

from soft foundation soils?

IV.A Foundations of Structures ChecklistPile Structures (Y/N/X) Notes:

17

18

19

If piles are to be driven to strong bedrock (Qu

>7.5 ksi) or through very dense granular soils or

overburden containing boulders, have “pile

points” been recommended in order to protect

the tips of the steel piling, as per BDM

305.4.5.6?

If piles will be driven through 15 feet or more of

new embankment, has preboring been specified

as per BDM 305.4.5.7?

If subsurface obstacles exist, has preboring been

recommended to avoid these obstructions?

IV.A Foundations of Structures Checklist

Drilled Shafts (Y/N/X) Notes:

20

21

22

23

a.

b.

c.

d.

24

25

26

27

a.

28

29

30

General (Y/N/X) Notes:

31

a.

Has the need for load testing of the foundations

been evaluated?

If needed, have details and plan notes for load

testing been included in the plans?

Are there drilled shafts on the project?

If no, go to the next checklist.

Have the drilled shaft diameter and embedment

length been specified?

total factored bending moment?

maximum deflection?

reinforcement design?

Have the recommended drilled shaft diameter

and embedment been developed based on the

nominal unit side resistance and nominal unit tip

resistance for vertical loading situations?

For shafts undergoing lateral loading, have the

following been determined:

total factored lateral shear?

If yes, and if artesian flow is a potential

concern, does the design address control of

groundwater flow during construction?

If necessary, have wet construction methods

been specified?

If a bedrock socket is required, has a minimum

rock socket length equal to 1.5 times the rock

socket diameter been used, as per BDM 305.5.2?

Has the site been assessed for groundwater

influence?

Have all the proper items been included in the

plans for integrity testing?

If scour is predicted, has shaft resistance in the

scour zone been neglected?

Generally, bedrock sockets are 6" smaller in

diameter than the soil embedment section of

the drilled shaft. Has this factor been accounted

for in the drilled shaft design?

If special construction features (e.g., slurry,

casing, load tests) are required, have all the

proper items been included in the plans?

IV.B. Retaining Wall ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

PDP Path:

Soil Data and Preliminary Calculations (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

a.

Earth Surcharge:

5

6

7

8

9

Have the correct Load Factors, Load

Combinations, and Limit States been considered,

per AASHTO LRFD 8th Ed. Articles 3.4.1, 10.5,

and 11.5?

Are earth pressure loads inclined at the soil-

structure interaction friction angle, δ and has δ

been determined per BDM 307.1.1?

Have the proper loading conditions been

determined?

If yes, check which loading conditions apply:

Backfill (Broken Back Slope):

Other (describe):

Backfill (At-Rest Earth Pressure Loading):

Backfill (Active Earth Pressure Loading):

Backfill (Apparent Earth Pressure (AEP)

Loading for Ground Anchors):

Backfill (Flat, No Slope):

Backfill (Infinite Slope):

Live Load Surcharge:

Has the groundwater elevation been

determined?

Has a justification study been performed to

determine the necessity of a wall as opposed to

ROW purchase or other project alternatives?

Have the necessary soil strength parameters and

unit weights been determined?

If you do not have a retaining wall on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Check method used:



Have the correct Resistance Factors been

considered, per AASHTO LRFD 8th Ed. Articles

10.5 and 11.5?

If applicable, has the influence of groundwater

been taken into account with regards to soil unit

weights and active pressures?

Has the Coulomb method been utilized to

determine the lateral earth pressure?

IV.B. Retaining Wall Checklist

Design (Y/N/X) Notes:

10

11

12

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

13

a.

b.

c.

d.

14

a.

b.

c.

sliding resistance?

limiting eccentricity and overturning

resistance? Analyze moment equilibrium about

toe for non-gravity cantilever walls.

total and differential settlement?

overall (global) stability?

For preliminary wall design, have the design

criteria and wall type selection process been

followed as instructed in BDM 201.2.5?

Was an economic analysis performed to

evaluate the cost benefits of the chosen wall

type compared to others?

Were representative sections analyzed for the

entire length of the retaining wall for the

following:

bearing resistance?

If poor foundation soils are present, has a

solution been determined with respect to the

following:

excessive settlement?

inadequate bearing resistance?

inadequate sliding resistance?

overall (global) instability?

For non-proprietary walls, each wall type has

design recommendations which need to be

determined. For the wall type being evaluated,

have the following design recommendations

been determined by accepted design methods

or, where applicable, FHWA design guidelines:

Rigid Gravity and Semigravity - footing width

and elevation, maximum factored Service and

Strength Limit State bearing pressures,

factored bearing resistance (BDM 307.1.5 &

307.2 )

Soldier Pile -pile size and type, drilled hole

diameter, embedment, spacing, lagging design,

facing, maximum moment and lateral shear,

section modulus, maximum deflection

Drilled Shafts - diameter, spacing, embedment,

arrangement and percent reinforcement,

maximum moment and lateral shear,

maximum deflection (see BDM 307.6)

IV.B. Retaining Wall ChecklistDesign (Y/N/X) Notes:

d.

e.

f.

g.

15

a.

16

17

18

a.

b.

c.

19

Cellular - type, maximum factored Service and

Strength Limit State bearing pressures,

factored bearing resistance, fill material (BDM

307.7.2)

Sheet Pile - pile size, embedment, maximum

moment and lateral shear, section modulus,

maximum deflection (BDM 307.7.1)

Soil Nail - nail size, spacing, inclination, and

length, loading per nail, facing (BDM 307.9)

Soil Anchor - load per anchor, number of rows,

wale design, anchor inclination and minimum

length, type of anchor, pile size, type, spacing,

and embedment, maximum moment and

lateral shear, section modulus, lagging design,

facing (BDM 307.8)

Proprietary wall designs require a special

process for detail design, as outlined in BDM

307.3 and 307.4. Has this procedure been

followed for this project?

The presence and quality of water behind the

wall structure and in the backfill can be a major

source of overloading and failure.

Has the quality / chemistry of the groundwater

been accounted for in the drainage system?

Has the need for load testing of the retaining

wall elements been evaluated?

If needed, have details and plan notes for load

testing been included in the plans?

Has an adequate drainage system been

included in the detail wall design?

If there is a water source behind the wall, has

additional drainage been added to control the

effect of this water source on the wall?

Temporary walls - have the same design

requirements as permanent walls of the same

type been followed, except the design service

life is no more than three years (BDM 307.10)?

Have the effects of the wall design and

construction procedure been determined and

accounted for on the construction schedule?

IV.B. Retaining Wall ChecklistDesign (Y/N/X) Notes:

20

Plans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:

21

22

Has the effect of the wall design and

construction been evaluated with regard to

structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, buildings,

utilities), which may be subject to unusual

stresses or require special design or construction

considerations?

Have all the necessary notes, specifications,

special provisions, and details for the

construction of the wall system been included in

the plans?

Have the need, location, type, plan notes, and

reading schedule for any instrumentation been

determined and included in the plans?

Check the types of instrumentation specified:

settlement platforms

inclinometers

monitoring wells / piezometers

load cells

strain gages

other (describe other types)

settlement cells

V.A. Landslide Remediation ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

Exploration (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Is the site included in the GHMS/ Collector

Landslide Inventory?

If yes, provide the rating.

deflection of linear features

other (describe other visible signs)

bent, cracked, or crushed pipe, culvert, or

other structures

water seepage, flow from embankment, or

ice

scarp

stream channel or ditch pinches

hydrophytic vegetation

Has a site reconnaissance been conducted to

define the limits of the landslide?

Has a landslide failure plane been determined

from field observations or instrumentation?

Has a groundwater monitoring program been

performed to identify the phreatic surface

through the landslide area?

If you do not have a landslide remediation on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Has the history of the landslide area been

researched, including movement history,

maintenance work, pavement drainage, and past

corrective measures?

Has a site specific geotechnical exploration been

performed to investigate the landslide area?

Have a site plan and cross sections been

provided to compare ground surface conditions

before and after failure?

If yes, check the visible signs observed:

rotated or dropped guardrail

cracks in pavement

bulging toe

sloughed slopes

leaning, curved, J-shaped, deformed, or fallen

trees or power poles

V.A. Landslide Remediation ChecklistAnalysis (Y/N/X) Notes:

8

9

10

11

12

a.

b.

c.

d.

1.30 for long term (drained) condition

1.10 for rapid drawdown, flood condition

1.50 for slope containing or supporting a

structural element

If water (static or flowing) significantly influences

the stability of the landslide, has the source of

water been identified, quantified, and water

quality assessed?

Have the following F.S. been met or exceeded,

as determined by the calculations, for the given

stability conditions:

1.30 for short term (undrained) condition

rotational failure

block failure

surface sloughing

other (describe other failure modes)

Have the subsurface conditions been identified

which are the expected source of the failure

mode?

weathering

impeded drainage

other (describe other sources)

translational

sheet

slump

Check those that apply:

loading

along sloped rock surfaces

erosion

through thin, weak soil layers

permeable materials

surface / groundwater

structure

Anthropogenic disturbances

general shear strength failure of foundation

soils

Check those that apply:

Have calculations been performed to determine

the F.S. for stability? Indicate which program and

which analysis method (Spencer, Bishop, etc)

was used.

Has the landslide mode of failure been

determined?

V.A. Landslide Remediation ChecklistAnalysis (Y/N/X) Notes:

13


14

15

16 Has a cost comparison been performed to

evaluate a recommended solution compared to

others?



design recommendations from FHWA, were

calculations performed to evaluate the

effectiveness of the chosen solutions?

If yes, check the methods that were

evaluated and note the chosen remediation:

benching and regrading (See GB 2)

counter berm and regrading

flatten slope

walls, sheeting, or drilled shafts

soil anchoring

relocate existing alignments

lightweight fills

soil removal / treatment

When differing soil or loading conditions occur

throughout the landslide area, have sufficient

analyses been completed to evaluate the

stability at locations representative of the most

critical conditions?

Has a landslide remediation method been

determined?

chemical treatment

Bioengineering


geosynthetic reinforced slope

install surface / subsurface drainage system

shear key (See GB 2)

soil nails or tiebacks

V.A. Landslide Remediation Checklist


17

18

19

20

21

22

Have the effects of the stability solution on the

construction schedule and maintenance of traffic

been accounted for in the plans?

Have the effects of the original failure and

proposed remediation on any structures (e.g.,

bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) or adjacent

properties been evaluated and solutions to any

issues incorporated into final design?

Has the information obtained from the

exploration and analysis been incorporated into

the project design?

Have the need, location, plan notes, and

monitoring schedule of instrumentation been

determined?

Have all necessary notes, specifications, and plan

details been developed?

Has the vertical and lateral extent of defined

landslide conditions been included on the Cross

Sections and Plan and Profile sheets?

V.B.Rockfall Remediation ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:


1

2

3

4

a.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Has the subsurface investigation program

identified the presence of geologic formations

noted in GB 3 as requiring special care?

If yes, has instrumentation of the site

adequately characterized the rock slope

condition(s)?

Has the history of the rockfall area been


maintenance work, and past corrective

measures?

Has the exploration included representative

profiles of the rock face?

Has instrumentation been installed?

Has the exploration included a large enough area

to accommodate all potential remediation

measures?

In accordance with Geotechnical Bulletin 3: Rock

Cut Slope & Catchment Design (GB3), has the

boring program adequately characterized the

rock and soil conditions (including the rock/soil

interface)?

Has the subsurface exploration program

adequately characterized the soils and bedrock

formations in both the vertical and horizontal

directions?

Has the exploration identified the groundwater

conditions on the slope?

Have the discontinuities along the rock slope

been identified and recorded?

Has the exploration included a review of climatic

conditions (e.g. snow melt, heavy precipitation)

preceding the slope failure?

In the vicinity of the rock slope, were any

underground voids detected in the hillsides

through drilling, geophysics, or surface

observations?


provided to compare ground surface conditions,


If you do not have a rockfall remediation on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

V.B.Rockfall Remediation Checklist

Analysis (Y/N/X) Notes:

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


21

22

23

24

25

26

27

In accordance with GB 3, has the vertical and

horizontal placement of benching adequately

addressed soft rock formations and differential

weathering?

Have various methods of remediation been

considered in selection of the preferred

alternative? (rock fence, rock bolting, rock

webbing, wire meshing, benching, redesign of

cut face, catchment ditch, cable anchoring,

drainage control, re-sloping, other)?

Has the design minimized launching features?

Have the cause and effect of any existing rockfall

conditions been determined?

Have the areas above, below and along the

terminal ends of the site been addressed for

secondary impacts of the project?

Have bedding and jointing of the bedrock

formations been identified as a significant factor

affecting the slope stability?

If so, were rose diagrams and stereonets

completed and analyzed?

Have other environmental factors (e.g., acid

mine drainage, mine openings, karst features)

been considered?

Has the impact from surface and groundwater

conditions been assessed?

If differential weathering is a concern, have the

weatherable rock formations been tested in

accordance with GB 3?

In accordance with GB 3, has the critical cross-

section been modeled for rockfall using CRSP or

equivalent software?

Has the rock slope design adequately

incorporated bedrock, soil, and groundwater

conditions?

When possible, has the vertical profile of the

road been established to reduce exposure of

weak/soft bedrock conditions?

In accordance with GB 3, has the design

considered the stratigraphy, structure, and

discontinuities of the bedrock?

Has the design incorporated catchment areas in

accordance with GB 3?

V.B.Rockfall Remediation Checklist


28

29

30

31

32

33


34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Is the sequencing of work and project design

constructable?

In accordance with GB 3, has the design

considered differential weathering, joints and

bedding in the long-term assessment of slope

stability?

Has the design considered hydrogeologic

characteristics of the site?



the project design?

Has a cost comparison been performed to


others?

Has secondary catchment (e.g., wire fencing,

concrete barrier walls) been included?

Has a monitoring plan for groundwater and

stability been included?

Have the need, location, plan notes, and reading

schedule of instrumentation been determined?

Have the effects of the design on the

construction schedule and maintenance of traffic

been accounted for on the plans?



bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) or adjacent

properties been evaluated and solutions to any




Have all the necessary plan notes, details, etc.

been included to address special rock slope

stabilization methods (e.g., rockfall, catch ditch,

wire mesh, shotcrete, rock bolts)?

Has the design included adequate surface and

subsurface drainage controls?

V.C. Wetland or Peat Remediation ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:


1

2

3

4


5

6

7

8

9 If water (static or flowing) significantly influences

the constructability at the wetland/peat

location, has the source of water been

identified?

As a means to avoid or limit the impact of the

wetlands/peat, has a change in alignment or

profile been evaluated?

Has the consolidation (settlement) been

determined for embankments or structures

constructed over the wetland/peat?

Has the effect of the long term consolidation

(e.g., secondary settlement) of peat on

embankment construction and structures been

evaluated?

Has the stability been evaluated for

embankments and structures constructed over

wetland/peat?

Has the lateral and vertical extent of the peat or

organic layers been established through a

detailed exploration program?

Have the physical characteristics of the peat

(type, unit weight, strength, compressibility,

moisture content, etc.) been determined

through field or laboratory testing?

Has a groundwater monitoring program been

performed to identify the phreatic surface

throughout the wetland/peat area?

Has a site specific geotechnical exploration been

performed to explore the wetland/peat

location?

If you do not have a wetland or peat remediation on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

V.C. Wetland or Peat Remediation Checklist


10

11

12


13

14

15

16

17

18

Have the effects of the wetland/peat

remediation on the construction schedule and

maintenance of traffic been accounted for in the

plans?

Have the effects of the proposed remediation on

any structures (e.g., bridges, buildings, culverts,

utilities) been evaluated and solutions to any



wetland/peat conditions been included on the

Cross Sections and Plan and Profile sheets?



the project design?



Has an assessment of groundwater impacts been

conducted on the preferred remediation

method?


evaluate the recommended remediation method

compared to others?



Has a remediation method for embankment

construction over the wetland/peat been

determined?

If yes, check the methods that were

evaluated and note the chosen remediation

method(s):

reduce grade/change alignment

flatten slopes/counterberm

removal of weak soils

lightweight embankment


drainage blanket and wickdrains

staged construction

controlled rate of fill placement

reinforced soil slopes

install surface/subsurface drainage system

V.D. Underground Mine Remediation ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:


1

a.

b.

c.

d.

2

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

thickness of mined interval

notations of roof conditions

locations of mine openings

elevation of mined interval

notations regarding water infiltration

notations of adjacent mine workings

method of mining

mining history within, or adjacent to, the

project area?

dimensions of mine workings

records for individual abandoned underground

mines within, or adjacent to, the project area?

If you do not have an underground mine area on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

vertical and lateral extent of mine workings

permit files for current coal and industrial

minerals underground mining operations

within, or adjacent to, the project area?

Have all abandoned underground mine maps

obtained from ODNR been reviewed for the

following information:

property lines, section lines and other physical

surface features which may facilitate

determining the present-day location of the

mine

secondary or retreat mining

Per Section 302.2.1 of the SGE, “Literature

Search,” have the ODNR DGS and ODNR DMRM

been consulted regarding the following

information:

existence of recoverable mineral resources

within, or adjacent to, the project area?

V.D. Underground Mine Remediation ChecklistExploration (Y/N/X) Notes:

3

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

4

5

6

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

the presence of abandoned underground mine

workings

vertical and lateral extent of abandoned

underground mine workings

locations of mine openings

the presence of abandoned underground mine

workings

vertical and lateral extent of mine workings

thickness of mined interval

nature of the overburden overlying the mined

interval

physical conditions and related stability within

the abandoned underground mine(s)

groundwater level

quality and quantity of water within the

abandoned underground mine(s)

Has a subsurface exploration been conducted to

define the following abandoned underground

mine information:

Have all other forms of information obtained

from ODNR been reviewed for the following

information:

elevation of mined interval

Has a project plan view consisting of the

overlaying of mine information (maps, etc.) on

the roadway been developed for planning

subsurface explorations?

If abandoned underground mines exist beneath

the project area, has a Detailed Site Evaluation

described in Section 500 of the AUMIRA manual

been conducted for the project area

groundwater level

the depth and nature of the overburden

overlying the mine(s)

physical conditions and related stability within

the abandoned underground mine(s)



V.D. Underground Mine Remediation ChecklistExploration (Y/N/X) Notes:

7

Evaluation (Y/N/X) Notes:

8

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

Remediation Design (Y/N/X) Notes:

9

10

11

a.

b.

c.

d.

12

13

Has the Site Evaluation defined the following

throughout the project area and areas adjacent

to the project area:

mine void height(s)



possible physical and/or hydraulic connectivity

to other adjacent, underlying and/or overlying

underground mines

location, nature, and physical condition of all

known mine openings

Has all exploration information been analyzed

and utilized to develop remediation design

recommendations?

Has a geophysical survey of the project area

been conducted?

If yes, indicate the methods utilized:

Has groundwater been evaluated to assess the

potential for impacts to adjacent properties?


evaluate the recommended solution compared

to others?

project area monitoring for mine subsidence

induced by project work

structural strike and dip of all mined mineral

seams

method(s) of mining and related extraction

rates

existence of secondary or retreat mining

management of any releases of water pooled

in the abandoned underground mine

physical condition (stability) of abandoned

underground mine

Has a site specific monitoring program been

undertaken to ensure the safety of the travelling

public until completion of remediation

construction?

Does the recommended remediation design

provide for:

stabilization of all mine voids whose potential

collapse could result in surface subsidence that

is detrimental to the traveling public

preventing mine pool blow-outs

V.D. Underground Mine Remediation ChecklistPlans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:

14

15

16

17

18

19

Have the plans and construction contract

documents adequately provided for project

specific requirements regarding inspection,

testing, record keeping, and site monitoring

during construction activities?

Have the effects of the proposed remediation on

any structures (e.g., bridges, buildings, culverts,

utilities) been evaluated and solutions to any

issues incorporated into the final design?

Has a site specific monitoring program been

undertaken during the development of the plans

and construction documents so as to ensure that

the design reflects the most current site

conditions?

Has the information obtained from the Site

Evaluation and analysis been incorporated into

the project plans?

Has the lateral and vertical extent of the

abandoned underground mine been included on

the Plan & Profile and Cross Sections sheets?

Have the plans and construction contract

documents been developed so as to comply with

all applicable regulations, particularly with

environmental regulations?

V.E. Surface Mine Remediation ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:


1

a.

b.

c.

d.

2

3

4

5

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Have the following forms of DMRM information

been reviewed regarding the existence of active,

reclaimed or abandoned surface mines within,

or adjacent to, the project area:

permit files for current or reclaimed coal and

industrial minerals mining operations

permit files for current or past bond forfeiture

coal and industrial minerals mining operations

project files for current or completed AML and

bond forfeiture projects

mining methods?

location and variations in height of final or

abandoned highwall?

location of toxic coal and/or mine spoil

materials?

varying physical properties of the mine spoil

materials?

method, location and horizontal limits of auger

mining underlying final highwalls?

location of sediment ponds?

Has all surface mine information obtained from

individuals listed in Question 4 of the

“Reconnaissance and Planning Checklist” been

discussed with DGS and DMRM, and

incorporated into the explorations information?

Have all the forms of gathered information,

including information developed through a

subsurface exploration program, defined the

following:

vertical and lateral extent of surface mining

affectment?

all AML inventory documents or databases

Has a subsurface exploration of the project area

been conducted?

If you do not have a surface mine remediation on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Has a geophysical exploration of the project area

been conducted?

If yes, indicate the methods utilized:

V.E. Surface Mine Remediation ChecklistExploration (Y/N/X) Notes:

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

o.

p.


6

7

8

a.

9

Has water quality and quantity information

adequately defined the hydrologic regime in the

project area?

Has all explorative information been

incorporated into the overall comprehensive

analysis of existing project area characteristics?

date(s) of operation and associated Ohio

mining regulations?

presence of acid mine drainage as surface

and/or groundwater?

location(s) of adjacent underground mine(s)?

groundwater quality and quantity throughout

the project area?

If mine spoil consolidation is a concern, which method(s)

were considered to alleviate the consolidation impact:

Have toxic coal refuse samples been analyzed for

calcium carbonate deficiencies (acid/base

accounting)?

current legal status of surface mine, i.e., active,

reclaimed, partially reclaimed, forfeited,

abandoned?

location and nature of localized high quantity

and/or low quality groundwater conditions?

general structural strike and dip of all mined

mineral formations?

localized variations of the structural strike and

dip of all mined mineral formations within the

project area?

location and extent of coal refuse disposal

areas?

Compaction grouting

Dynamic compaction

Remove and replace

Preloading

Soil mixing

Other (describe other methods)

Has the impact of mine spoil consolidation on

the proposed project been determined?

V.E. Surface Mine Remediation ChecklistDesign (Y/N/X) Notes:

10

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

11

Have the following features been included in the

project design:

general surface and groundwater drainage

management which accounts for detected

variations in quality and /or quantity

management of localized high volume and/or

low quality surface and groundwater sources

general roadway and structural construction

methods to overcome compressibility

(settlements) related to unconsolidated mine

spoil, including dynamic compaction, the use of

geosynthetics, preloading, soil mixing,

compaction grouting

contingency plans for disposal of hazardous

waste materials unexpectedly encountered in

mine spoil

methods to overcome soil piping related to

smaller gradation mine spoil overlying coarser

mine spoil

control of differential settlement at the

location of previously backfilled highwalls and

highwalls proposed to be backfilled during

project construction

methods for stabilization of auger mining voids

underlying the final highwalls

location, nature, and physical condition of all

known mine openings

use of washed river aggregate and high density

polyethylene (HDPE) drainage conduits and

fixtures in systems and structures built to

manage low quality groundwater

disposal of toxic spoil and coal refuse materials

If discharges of water, movements of toxic coal

or spoil, or drilling and grouting of subsurface

auger mining voids underlying the final highwalls

are to be performed, have all the necessary

notifications been made and all necessary

permits been acquired from the EPA?

V.E. Surface Mine Remediation ChecklistDesign (Y/N/X) Notes:

12

13

If active or abandoned surface mines exist within

the project vicinity and the project earthwork

will result in an excess amount of excavation or

embankment, have the DMRM and OSMRE been

contacted regarding the possible mutual benefits

to the project and to the AML which may exist

by either wasting suitable excess excavation or

obtaining needed suitable embankment from

nearby abandoned surface mine areas?



others?

V.E. Surface Mine Remediation ChecklistPlans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:

14

15

16

17

18

19 Have the effects of the original failure and


bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) been

evaluated and solutions to any issues

incorporated into final design?

Has the vertical and lateral extent of surface

mining disturbance been included on the Cross




the project design?



Have the need, location, plan notes, and

monitoring schedule of instrumentation been

determined?

Have the methods of payment for contract pay

items been flexibly structured to allow for work

adjustments due to highly variable subsurface

conditions related to past surface mining?

If yes, check the type of unit pricing provided for in the

contract documents:

unit pricing of materials and excavation

related to surface and groundwater

structures

unit pricing of work items related to spoil

stabilization/consolidation

unit pricing of drilling items related to

stabilization of auger mining voids underlying

the final highwalls

unit pricing of individual grouting

components required for stabilization of

auger mining voids underlying the final

highwalls

Other (describe other pricing types)

V.F. Karst Remediation ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:


1

2

3

4

5

6

7


8

9

10 Has the presence of joints been presented in

rose diagrams or by other graphical means?

Has a groundwater assessment been conducted

to inventory and establish use of the

groundwater resources within 1000 feet of the

project limits?

If yes to geophysical methods, indicate which

methods were utilized:

Has the analysis considered overburden

thickness, bedrock surface, cavity and/or arch

characteristics, and groundwater depth and use?

Has groundwater flow been evaluated to assess

the potential impacts of remedial actions?

Has the history of the karst area been


maintenance work, and past corrective

measures?

Have joint sets and bedding of the formation(s)

been defined?

If you do not have a karst remediation on the project, you do not have to fill out this checklist.

Have geophysical or drilling methods been

employed to define the vertical and lateral

extent of any karst features?

Have aerial photographs and surface topography

maps been reviewed to identify the occurrence

of surface depressions in the general area?

Has the exploration included a review of

deranged (irregular) drainages, lack of drainage

or unexpected surface water disappearance

(piracy)?


provided comparing ground surface conditions,


V.F. Karst Remediation Checklist


11

12

13


14

15

16

17

18

19



the project design?


karst conditions been included on the Cross






bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) been

evaluated and solutions to any issues

incorporated into final design?



Have the effects of the remediation solution on

the construction schedule and maintenance of

traffic been accounted for on the plans?

Has the design maintained groundwater flow

through the area?



others?

Has a remediation method been determined?


If yes, check the methods that were evaluated and

note the chosen remediation method(s):

grouting

dig-out

pillar grouting

land bridge

implosion

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

General Presentation (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

5

a.

6

7

8

9

10

Has a scale of 1” = 10’ been utilized for the

vertical scale of the project data?

If the project includes structures, have all

structure explorations been presented together

under the same cover sheet? (Do not create

separate Structure Foundation Exploration

Sheets)

Has the first complete version of all documents

being submitted been labeled as ‘Draft’?

Subsequent to ODOT’s review and approval, has

the complete version of the revised documents

being submitted been labeled as ‘Final’?

Has a scale of 1”=1’ been used for cover sheets,

laboratory test data sheets, and boring log

sheets, if applicable?

Based on the project length, has the correct

horizontal scale been used to plot the project

data?

Check scale used:

1” = 5', 10', 20’, 25’, 40’, or 50’ for projects

1500’ or less (use largest scale appropriate to

present entire plan on one sheet)

1” = 50’ projects greater than 1500’

Has an electronic copy of all geotechnical

submissions been provided to the District

Geotechnical Engineer (DGE)?

Has the geotechnical specification (title and

date) under which the work was performed

been clearly identified on every submission

(reports, plans, etc.)?

If the project includes structures, has the plan

and profile view been shown at the same scale

as the Site Plan for the proposed structure(s),

when possible?

Have the C-R-S, PID number, and product title

been included in the folder name?

Have the cadd files been prepared using the

appropriate version of the ODOT CADD

standards?

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistGeneral Presentation (Y/N/X) Notes:

11

12

Cover Sheet (Y/N/X) Notes:

13

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

A statement of which version (date) of the SGE

specification the exploration was performed in

accordance with?

Statement of where geotechnical reports are

available for review?

Initials of personnel and dates they performed

field reconnaissance, subsurface exploration

and preparation of the soil profile?

Brief presentation of geological and

topographical information derived from the

field reconnaissance? Include comments on

structure and pavement conditions.

Brief presentation of test boring and sampling

methods? Include date of last calibration and

drill rod energy ratio as a percent for the

hammer systems used.

Summary of general soil, bedrock, and

groundwater conditions, including a

generalized interpretation of findings?

Brief description of the project, including the

bridge number of each bridge involved in the

plan set, if any?

Brief description of historic geotechnical

explorations referenced in this exploration?

State if no historic records are available.

Generalized information about the geology of

the project area, including terrain, soil origin,

bedrock types, and age?

Have the cross-sections been plotted at a scale

of 1” = 10’ (preferred) or 1” = 20’ (for higher or

wider slopes)?

Has the following general information been

provided on the cover sheet:

If the project includes culverts, have the plan

and profile been presented along the flowline of

the culvert?

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistCover Sheet (Y/N/X) Notes:

14

15

a.

b.

c.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

In the summary table, has the data been

displayed by roadway and subgrade boring in

ascending stationing order for each roadway?

Have the centerline or baseline station, offset,

and exploration identification number been

provided for each boring presented in the table?

If sampling and testing for a scour analysis was

performed, has this data been shown in tabular

form?

Has a summary table of test data for all roadway

and subgrade boring samples been shown?

If borings from previous subsurface explorations

are being used, has that data been shown in a

separate table?

Have the station limits for each plan and profile

sheet for projects with multiple alignments, or

greater than 1500’, been identified in a table?

Have the station limits for any cross section

sheets been identified in the same table?

Has a list of any structures for which structure

foundation explorations been performed been

identified in the same table?

All miscellaneous symbols and acronyms, used

on any of the sheets, defined?

The number of soil samples for each

classification that were mechanically classified

and visually described in the current

exploration?

Has a Legend been provided?

Have the following items been included in the

Legend:

Symbols and usual descriptions for only the soil

and bedrock types presented in the Soil Profile,

as per the Soil and Rock Symbology Chart in

Appendix D of the SGE?

Has a Location Map, showing the beginning and

end stations for the project, been shown on the

cover sheet, sized per the L&D3 Manual?

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistCover Sheet (Y/N/X) Notes:

25

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

26

Surface Data (Y/N/X) Notes:

27

a.

b.

c.

d.

28

29

Notes regarding observations not readily

shown by drawings?

Have the existing ground surface contours been

presented?

If cross sections are to be developed for

stationing covered on a plan sheet, has an index

for the appropriate cross section sheets been

included on the plan sheet?

Existing surface features described in Section

702.5.1?

Proposed construction items, as described in

Section 702.5.2?

Project and historic boring locations, with

appropriate exploration targets and

exploration identification numbers?

Sulfate Content test results?

Have all undisturbed test results been displayed

in graphical format on the sheet prior to the plan

and profile sheets?

Has the following information been shown on

each roadway plan drawing:

Liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, and

water content, all rounded to the nearest

percent or whole number?

ODOT classification and Group Index?

Visual description of samples not mechanically

classified, including water content, and

estimated ODOT classification with ‘Visual’ in

parentheses?

Percent recovery?

Hand Penetrometer?

Percentage of aggregate, coarse sand, fine

sand, silt, and clay size particles?

Sample depth interval?

Sample number and type?

N60?

For each sample, has the following information

been provided in the summary table:

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistSubsurface Data (Y/N/X) Notes:

30

31

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

32

33

34

35

36

37 Have cross-sections been developed to show

subsurface conditions disclosed by a series of

borings drilled transverse to centerline or

baseline?

Have the offsets from centerline or baseline

been indicated above the borings in the profile

view?

Have borings located immediately adjacent to

the centerline or baseline and considered

representative of centerline or baseline

subsurface conditions been referenced directly

to the centerline or baseline?

Have offset borings in or near the same

elevation interval of a centerline or baseline

boring been plotted either on a cross section or

immediately above or below the centerline

boring in a box containing an elevation scale?

Soil and bedrock symbols as per ODOT Soil and

Rock Symbology chart (SGE - Appendix D)?

Historical borings shown in same manner with

the exploration identification number above

the boring?

Have the proposed groundline and existing

groundline been shown on the profile view,

according to ODOT CADD standards?

Exploration identification number above the

boring?

Logs indicate soil and bedrock layers with

symbols 0.4” wide and centered on the heavy

dashed vertical line where possible?

Bedrock exposures with 0.4” wide symbols, but

without a heavy dashed vertical line?

Has all the subsurface data been presented in

the form of a profile along the centerline or

baseline, and on cross sections where

applicable?

Have the graphical boring logs been correctly

shown, as follows:

Location and depth of boring indicated by a

heavy dashed vertical line?

Have the locations of the proposed structure

foundation elements been shown on the profile

view?

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistSubsurface Data (Y/N/X) Notes:

38

39

40

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

Designate a non-plastic soil with moisture

content exceeding 25% or exceeding 19% but

appearing wet initially, with a 1/8” open circle

with a horizontal line through it adjacent to the

moisture content?

The reason for discontinuing a boring prior to

reaching the planned depth indicated

immediately below the boring?

Visual description of any uncontrolled fill or

interval not adequately defined by a graphical

symbol?

Organic content with modifiers, per 603.5?

Designate a plastic soil with moisture content

equal to or greater than the liquid limit minus

three with a 1/8” solid black circle adjacent to

the moisture content?

N60, aligned with the bottom of sample? Label

column as ‘N60’ at bottom of boring.

Free water indicated by a horizontal line with a

‘w’ attached, and water level at the end of

drilling indicated by an open equilateral

triangle, point down?

Complete geologic description of each bedrock

unit, including unit core loss, unit RQD, SDI,

and compressive strength test results? (Do not

present geologic descriptions for structure

borings for which this information is presented

on the boring logs as described in 703.3)

Has the following information been provided

adjacent to the graphical logs or bedrock

exposure:

Thickness, to the nearest inch, of sod/topsoil

or other shallow surface material written

above the boring (with corresponding

symbology at top of log)?

Moisture content, to nearest whole percent,

with the bottom of the text aligned with the

bottom of the sample? Label this column as

‘WC’ at bottom of the boring.

Have the existing and proposed groundlines

been displayed on cross section sheets according

to ODOT CADD standards?

Have bedrock exposures shown on the cross

sections been plotted along the contour of the

cross section?

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistBoring Logs (Y/N/X) Notes:

41

42

43

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

44

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

o.

p.

Have the boring logs of all structure borings, all

geohazard borings, and any roadway borings

drilled in the vicinity of the structures or

geohazard been shown on the boring log sheets

following the plan and profile sheets? (Create

the logs in accordance with 703.3)

Have the boring logs been developed by

integrating the driller’s field logs, laboratory test

data, and visual descriptions?

Has the following boring information been

included in the heading of each boring log:

Exploration identification number?

Project designation (C-R-S) and PID?

Structure File Number (if applicable) and

project type.

Centerline or baseline name, station, offset,

and surface elevation?

Coordinates?

Method of drilling?

Date started and date completed?

Method and material (including quantity) used

for backfilling or sealing, including type of

instrumentation, if any?

Date of last calibration and drill rod energy

ratio (ER) in percent for the hammer system(s)

used?

Has the following boring information been

included in each boring log:

A depth and elevation scale?

Indication of stratum change?

Description of material in each stratum?

Depth of bottom of boring?

Depth of boulders or cobbles, if encountered?

Caving depth?

Water level observations?

Artesian water level and height of rise?

Heaving sand?

Cavities or other unusual conditions?

Depth interval represented by sample?

Sample number and type?

Percent recovery for each sample?

Measured blow counts for each 6 inches of

drive for split spoon samples?

N60 to the nearest whole number?

Hand penetrometer?

VI.A. Soil Profile ChecklistBoring Logs (Y/N/X) Notes:

q.

r.

s.

t.

u.

v.

w.

x.

y.

z.

aa.

Particle-size analysis?

Liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index?

Water content?

ODOT soil classifications, with "V" in

parentheses for those samples that are not

mechanically classified?

SDI, if applicable?

Rock compressive strength test results, if

applicable?

Top of bedrock and bedrock descriptions?

Run rock core percent recovery?

Run RQD?

Unit rock core percent recovery?

Unit RQD?

VI.B. Geotechnical ReportsC-R-S: 0 PID: 0 Reviewer: Date:

General (Y/N/X) Notes:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Report Body (Y/N/X) Notes:

7

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Appendices (Y/N/X) Notes:

8

9

Has the boring data been submitted in a native

format that is DIGGS (Data Interchange for

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental)

compatable? gINT files may be used for this.

Has the first complete version of a geotechnical

report being submitted been labeled as ‘Draft’?

Subsequent to ODOT’s review and approval, has

the complete version of the revised geotechnical

report being submitted been labeled ‘Final’?

Has an electronic copy of all geotechnical

submissions been provided to the District

Geotechnical Engineer (DGE)?

a section titled "Findings," as described in

Section 705.6 of the SGE?

Have all geotechnical reports being submitted

been titled correctly as prescribed in Section

705.1 of the SGE?

Do all geotechnical reports being submitted

contain the following:

an Introduction as described in Section 705.3

of the SGE?

a section titled "Exploration," as described in


Does the report cover format follow ODOT's

Brand and Identity Guidelines Report Standards

found at http://www.dot.state.

oh.us/brand/Pages/default.aspx ?

an Executive Summary as described in Section

705.2 of the SGE?

Do the Appendices present a site Boring Plan

showing all boring locations as described in

Section 705.8.1 of the SGE?

a section titled "Geology and Observations of

the Project," as described in Section 705.4 of

the SGE?

Do all geotechnical reports being submitted

contain all applicable Appendices as described in


a section titled "Analyses and

Recommendations," as described in Section

705.7 of the SGE?

VI.B. Geotechnical ReportsAppendices (Y/N/X) Notes:

10

11

12 Do the Appendices include calculations in a

logical format to support recommendations as

described in Section 705.8.4 of the SGE?

Do the Appendices include reports of

undisturbed test data as described in Section

705.8.3 of the SGE?

Do the Appendices include boring logs and color

pictures of rock, if applicable, as described in

Section 705.8.2 of the SGE?

VII. References

Publications - FHWA

Advanced Course on Slope Stability, Volume 1 and 2, Abramson, Lee, Boyce, Glenn, et al., Publication No.

FHWA-SA-94-005 and 006

Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcement for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes,

Elias, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-087

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 2 - Earth Retaining Systems, Sabitini, Elias, et al., Publication No.

FHWA-SA-96-038

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3 - LRFD Seismic Analysis and Design of Transportation Geotechnical

Features and Structural Foundations, Kavazanjian, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-11-032

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 - Ground Anchors and Anchor Systems, Sabitini, Pass and Bachus,

Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-015

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 – Geotechnical Site Characterization, Loehr, et. al., Publication No.

FHWA-NHI-16-072

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6 – Shallow Foundations, Kimmerling, Publication No. FHWA-IF-02-054

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual, Lazarte, et. al., Publication No.

FHWA-NHI-14-007

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 10 - Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods, Brown,

et. al., Publication No. FHWA-NHI-18-024

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 11 - Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and

Reinforced Soil Slopes, Volume I and II, Berg, Christopher, and Samtani, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024

and 025

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 12 - Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume I and II,

Hannigan, Rausche, Likins, Robinson, and Becker, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-009 and 010

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 13 – Ground Modification Methods Reference Manual, Volume I and II,

Schaefer, et. al., Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-027 and 028

Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual, Dunnicliff, NHI Course No. 13241 - Module 11

Prefabricated Vertical Drains: Volume 1: Engineering Guidelines, Rixner, Kraemer, and Smith, Publication No.

FHWA-RD-86-168

Soils and Foundations Workshop, Reference Manual and Participant Workbook, Cheney and Chassie,

Publication No. NHI-00-045

Soils and Foundations Reference Manual, Volume I and II, Samtani and Nowatzki, Publication No. NHI-06-088 and 089

Highway Subdrainage Design, Moulton, Publication No. FHWA-TS-80-224

Tiebacks, Weatherby, Publication No. FHWA/RD-82/047

VII. References

GB1

GB2

GB3

GB4

GB5

GB7

GB9

Bulletins Boring logs Measured geologic section(s)

Information Circulars Water well logs Report of Investigations

Bedrock Topography Map, DGS USGS Open File Map Series #78-1057 Landslides and Related Features, DGS

Publications - ODNR (www.dnr.state.oh.us/)

Bedrock Geology Map, DGS Geologic Map of Ohio, DGS

Bedrock Structure Map, DGS Quaternary Geology of Ohio, DGS

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, latest edition

Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/)

Wetlands Mapper, National Wetlands Inventory (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html )

Known and Probable Karst in Ohio, DGS

Other publications or information available from ODNR:

Publications – Other Organizations

Pavement Design Manual, Office of Pavement Engineering

Specifications for Geotechnical Explorations, Office of Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical Bulletins - ODOT

Plan Subgrades

Rock Cut Slope and Catchment Design

Guidelines for the Use of Geotechnical Instrumentation

Geotechnical Submission Guidelines

Drilled Shaft Landslide Stabilization Design

Geotechnical Software

Special Benching and Sidehill Embankment Fills

Manual for Abandoned Underground Mine Inventory and Risk Assessment (AUMIRA), Office of Geotechnical Engineering

Publications - ODOT (www.dot.state.oh.us/drrc/)

CADD Engineering Standards Manual, Office of CADD and Mapping

Construction and Material Specifications, Office of Construction Administration

Location and Design Manual: Volume 1 - Roadway Design, Office of Roadway Engineering

Location and Design Manual: Volume 3 - Highway Plans, Office of CADD and Mapping

Y ✓

N

X Backfill Surcharge

Flat Yes

Sloped No