GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT CARTER ROAD SLIDE CLEVELAND, OHIO SME Project Number: 076822.27 March 29, 2019 March 29, 2019 9375 Chillicothe Road Kirtland, OH 44094-8501 T (440) 256-6500 www.sme-usa.com Mr. Thomas Boyer, PE Design Section Chief 601 Lakeside Room 518 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Via E-mail: tboyer@city.cleveland.oh.us RE: Geotechnical Evaluation Report Carter Road Slide Cleveland, Ohio SME Project No. 076822.27 Dear Mr. Boyer: We have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the Carter Road Slide in Cleveland, Ohio. The attached report presents the results of our field and laboratory testing, stability analysis, interpretation of the data, and our preliminary stability recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, SME Brendan P. Lieske, PE Project Engineer © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................1 2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES.................................................................. 2 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ......................................................................................2 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................2 3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 2 3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................2 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.......................................................................3 4. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 4 4.1 INCLINOMETER READINGS ............................................................................4 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ...........................................................................4 4.3 PRELIMINARY SLOPE REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................5 4.3.1 APPROACH 1 – RIVER’S EDGE BULKHEAD ........................................................ 5 4.3.2 APPROACH 2 – RETAINGING WALL .................................................................. 5 4.3.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR BOTH APPROACHES................................................... 6 4.4 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS .........................................................................6 APPENDIX A BORING LOCATION PLAN BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY BORING LOGS BY SME BORING LOGS BY OTHERS ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPH LOG ROCK CORE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS SLOPE STABILITY PROFILE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS INCLINOMETER PLOTS APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS 076822.27+032919+GER © 2019 SME 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical evaluation for the Carter Road Slide in Cleveland, Ohio. We performed this evaluation in general accordance with our scope and budget emailed to the City of Cleveland on November 12, 2018, and authorized by Tom Boyer, Design Section Chief Division of Engineering and Construction, as Work Task #27 on November 13, 2018. SME received the following information which was used in the evaluation and preparation of this report:  Portions of a geotechnical report by BBC&M, dated 2008 for the Columbus Road Lift Bridge.  A Geotechnical Report for the Scranton Road/Carter Road Improvements, prepared by Solar Testing Laboratories and dated July 9, 2015.  A Slope Stability Evaluation for Carter Road Subdivision No. 1, prepared by Solar Testing Laboratories and dated July 15, 2016.  Boring Logs for the Lake Link Trail, prepared by Timmerman Geotechnical Group and dated September 2013.  Soil boring logs for Lake Link Trail Phase 1 by Solar Testing Laboratories dated 2016.  A Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report for the Carter Road Improvement Project, prepared by PSI and dated May 22, 2014.  A Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report for the Scranton Road Improvement Project, prepared by PSI and dated May 28, 2014.  A Geotechnical Exploration Report for the Sheet Pile Wall for the Scranton/Carter Road Rehabilitation project, prepared by Solar Testing Laboratories and dated August 20, 2015. Boring information from Solar’s July 9, 2015, Geotechnical Report and their July 15, 2016, Slope Stability Evaluation along with BBC&M’s boring logs were incorporated with information from our study to develop the subsurface profile used in our analysis. To provide clarity and ease of reading, we have reproduced the relevant Solar and BBCM boring logs into the SME log format. The locations of the relevant Solar and BBC&M borings are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan and slope stability profile. 1.1 SITE CONDITIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located in the area of Carter Road east of the Columbus Road lift bridge. A slide has occurred between the north curb line of Carter Road and the bank of the Cuyahoga River. We have illustrated the approximate location of the visible scarp on our boring location plan. Carter Road sits below a slope to the south and above the river. The top of the upper slope has a surface elevation of 685 feet. Carter road is near elevation 611 feet and the river’s edge is near elevation 569 feet. The depth of the river is roughly estimated at 28 feet. This results in a total slope height of about 144 feet. Carter road is about 70 feet above the river bottom. The portion of land between the road and river carries a Cleveland Metroparks multipurpose trail. The trail is part of the Metroparks long range plan to connect the existing trails from the south, up through the Irishtown Bend area, connecting to Lake Erie, and is a key feature in the trail system. There is also a storm water outlet that collects surface waters from Carter Road and water from a hydrodynamic separator intended to treat storm water from future development along the south side of Carter Road. The storm water discharge point has been protected with rock channel protection to minimize erosion. Our goal for this geotechnical evaluation is to better define the geology beneath Carter Road and perform a preliminary slope stability analysis to help determine the cause of the slide, which can ultimately be used to design a repair solution that will stabilize the slope. © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER 1 2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION We completed two Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings at the site between November 19 and 27, 2018. B-1 was extended to a final depth of 164 feet below existing grade, which included 20 feet of rock coring. B-2 was extended to a final depth 80 feet. In addition to split-barrel samples, we also collected seven thin-walled Shelby tube samples. A slope inclinometer tube was set into the bedrock at a depth of 160 feet below existing grade within the borehole at B-1. SME determined the number, depths, and locations of the borings. We marked the boring locations by measuring offsets from existing site features referencing them to known monument pins in the street. We measured the relative ground surface elevation at each boring location, as well as multiple points along the slope to provide data to develop our slope stability profile. We referenced one of the monument pins on Carter Road as a benchmark. The approximate benchmark, ground surface elevations, and boring locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. The borings were drilled and sampled in general accordance with ASTM Standards. The borehole at B-2 was backfilled with a bentonite and cement slurry. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Samples from the borings were taken to our laboratory, where they were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D-2488. We determined the moisture contents on portions of the soil samples obtained and performed hand penetrometer and torvane shear tests on selected cohesive samples. We also performed three direct shear tests on selected Shelby tube samples and two uniaxial compressive strength tests on selected rock core samples. The rock cores have been photographed and are presented in Appendix A. The boring logs and laboratory test results are included in Appendix A. Explanations of symbols and terms used on the boring logs are provided on the Boring Log Terminology sheet included in Appendix A. 3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS The soil profile consists of fill over predominantly sands and silts (Alluvium and terrace deposits) over interbedded deposits of harder silts and clays (glacial tills). Shale bedrock is encountered near elevation 467 feet, approximately 142 feet below the surface of Carter Road. Within our borings, we encountered 5 inches of topsoil at the surface followed by 14 ½ feet (B-2) to 28 feet (B-1) of fill. The fill consists of sand with varying amount of gravel, clay, bricks, slag, concrete, cinders, and organics. Below the fill, we encountered very loose to loose sands and silts to about 43 feet (elevation 567 feet) at B-1 and 30 feet (elevation 580 feet) at B-2. Below the sands and silts, we encountered a medium stiff to stiff layer of varved (see description and photographs below) silty/lean clay, which we’ve identified as the weak (low shear strength) layer within this subsurface profile. This layer extends from a depth of about 42 to 61 feet (elevation 567 to 548 feet). Direct shear test results indicate that soils within this layer have a post-peak friction angle of about 17°, which is low. Our slope stability analyses indicate that this layer is the likely failure plane and our inclinometer readings, also presented in the Appendix A, confirmed movement within this layer. The condition at Carter Road is very similar, if not the same as, the failing slope conditions at the Irishtown Bend where this weak lacustrine clay layer also exists. © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER 2 Photographs of Varved Clay – Scale in Millimeters Carter Road Sample Typical Image of Varved Clay Varved clays are lacustrine deposits (soil deposited through water onto lake bottoms) of thinly bedded layers of silt and clay. Most of the lacustrine deposits in our area are post glacial deposits that were formed after the glaciers left our area. They are typically found over the top of glacial till deposits as is the case at Carter Road. The layering occurs between seasons when lakes goes from unfrozen to frozen and the water becomes calmer beneath this ice. The silt particles are larger and heavier and settle to the lake bottom when the water is open or unfrozen. Once the lake freezes, and the water turbulence calms down, the smaller clay particles settle to the bottom. Each silt/clay layer is like the ring of a tree and represent one season. The thicknesses of the layers vary depending on sediment load and how long the lake is frozen over. The layering in this case does not necessarily equal one year of time but only one cycle of freezing. Not all lacustrine clays are varved. Portions of the weak lacustrine clay layers sampled in our borings did not show varving. At a depth of about 61 feet (elevation 548 feet, below the weak clay layer), we encountered glacial till consisting of very stiff to hard lean/silty clay and dense silt. At a depth of about 142 feet (elevation 467 feet), we encountered medium to moderately hard shale. The nearby uphill Solar boring logs indicate a similar profile in the zones that overlap our borings. Above our borings, the logs show sandy fill from the surface to a depth ranging from 6½ to 23½ feet. Below the fill, these borings show loose or better sands and silts to their termination depths. The deepest subsurface information from the Solar borings ends at elevation 584 feet which is above the identified weak clay layer in our borings. The soil profile included on the boring logs is a generalized description of the conditions encountered. The stratification depths shown on the boring logs indicate a zone of transition from one soil type to another and do not show exact depths of change from one soil type to another. The soil descriptions are based on visual classification of the soils encountered. Soil conditions may vary between or away from the boring locations. 3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was not observed in our bore holes during our field exploration once we switched from hollow-stem augers to mud rotary drilling methods. For our slope stability profile, we used groundwater information from the Solar boring logs along with our moisture content test results and visual observations of the split-barrel and thin-wall Shelby tube samples which indicate groundwater between elevation 594 feet and 607 feet. Hydrostatic groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate throughout the year, based on variations in precipitation, evaporation, run-off, and other factors. The groundwater conditions indicated by the borings represent conditions at the time the readings were taken. The groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary from those conditions noted on the boring logs. © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER 3 4. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 INCLINOMETER READINGS As previously stated, a slope inclinometer tube was installed at B-1 for long term monitoring of the slope in the failed area. Inclinometer readings from this slope tube help define the slip plane within the slide, the rate of movement, and can be used to validate our model of the slope. On December 7, 2018, we performed a set of two baseline readings of this inclinometer tube. Since this baseline reading, we have returned to the site twice for additional readings, on December 21, 2018, and on February 6, 2019. A cumulative displacement plot of these readings is included in Appendix A. We have budgeted for two additional inclinometer readings in the future. If visible movement of the slope is observed, please notify SME and we will perform an inclinometer reading right away. If no movement is observed in the near future, we recommend waiting until March or April 2019 to perform the next reading. Inclinometer readings at B-1 indicate displacement in the positive A-axis direction (toward the river) at depth range of about 50 to 60 feet below existing grade (elevation 560 to 550 feet). This displacement aligns with the weak clay layer that we identified in our borings and direct shear tests. 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS To develop the surface profile for our slope stability analysis, we measured the relative ground surface elevation at each boring location, as well as multiple points along the slope. We combined the results of our survey with the Cuyahoga County Topographic map to develop our slope profile shown on our Boring Location Plan. We used soils information from our borings and the relevant Solar borings to develop the subsurface profile for our analysis. Soil properties used in our slope stability analysis are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Stability Analysis Soil Properties Soil Description Unit Weight Cohesion Friction (lbs/ft3) (psf) Angle (deg.) Fill 128 0 31 Very Loose Sand/Silt 138 0 35 Medium Dense Silt (Silt 1) 140* 0 35* Medium Stiff Varved, Lean/Silty 122* 0 16.6* Clay (CL 1) Stiff Lean Clay (CL 2) 130* 0 29* Very Stiff Lean Clay (Till 1) 138 0 31 Dense Silt (Silt 2) 142 0 35 Hard Lean Clay (Till 2) 143 0 32 Shale 145 1500 40 *Indicates properties determined by laboratory testing. All other properties are estimated. Our evaluation indicates that failures on this slope are occurring within the weak lacustrine clay layer between elevations 580 feet and 548 feet. This clay layer does not possess sufficient strength to resist movement of the slope. This slope is also located on the outside bank of a bend in the Cuyahoga River, which is typically exposed to a significant amount of erosion due to the hydraulics of the river and the turbulence generated by passing and turning ships. The river is essentially eroding the toe of the slope at the low strength layer, leaving the slope susceptible to failure. There is a failed bulk head along the river bank that is contributing to the slope movement. © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER 4 We completed stability analyses using the residual shear strength of the weak clay layer, since we believe this to be more representative of the existing conditions. By adjusting the limits of our analysis, we evaluated failures at the toe of the slope (where the scarp is presently forming), the middle of the slope, and globally from the top of the slope. The results of these analyses are included in Appendix A, titled “Down Slope_Non-circular”, “Mid Slope_Non-circular”, and “Top Slope_Non-circular”, respectively. The results of each of these analyses indicates a non-circular failure with a Factor of Safety (FS) of about 1, which indicates a critical slope. By standard convention for stability, the FS should be at least 1.3 where there are no structures on or near the slope, and 1.5 where there are structures. 4.3 PRELIMINARY SLOPE REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the results of our slope analysis, the depth of the failure plane below Carter Road, and the intention to focus solely on protecting Carter Road and the Cleveland Metroparks multipurpose trail, the following stabilization approaches that should be considered are presented below. North of and south of Carter Road, additional localized stabilization will likely be required by the land owners if they wish to prevent future slope failures. Without supplemental stabilization work, these slopes have a high probability of failure. The approaches described below will not prevent failures from occurring north or south of Carter Road, but are intended to stabilize Carter Road and the Cleveland Metroparks trail. 4.3.1 APPROACH 1 – RIVER’S EDGE BULKHEAD The stabilizing effort for the slope begins at the river’s edge where nearby bulk head structures have failed over time. Because of the depth of the failure zone, 42 to 61 feet below Carter Road (see the Carter Road Section presented in Appendix A), a deep wall system toed into the underlying very stiff clay soils and tied back near its top by drilling anchors, will most likely be required. Such systems will stabilize the instability of Carter Road and could also improve the FS for the slopes above Carter Road. The wall height at the river’s edge would most likely be selected to help flatten the angle of the slope below Carter Road. This approach would preserve the most usable land space available for the Metroparks’ trail, provided a reasonable slope angle can be achieved. The slope between the river and the bike path is currently at angle of about 1.7H: 1V, or steeper. Based on the estimated shear strength of these soils, this slope could exhibit additional failures, even after installing a bulkhead. To increase stability, the slope should be regraded to a flatter angle or reinforced if the steeper angle needs to be preserved. This could be accomplished by raising the top of the bulkhead, moving the crest of the slope closer to the bike path (installing a guard rail for safety), or a combination of systems. 4.3.2 APPROACH 2 – RETAINGING WALL We understand that the property between the river and the Metroparks’ trail is privately owned; therefore, a river’s edge approach may not be possible without the cooperation of the current property owner. A second approach would be to construct a wall, similar to the bulkhead, but higher up the slope, just north of the Metroparks’ trail. This would eliminate the need to work along the river bank but would do nothing to protect the shoreline from further erosion. The soil between the high wall and the river bank would be sacrificial. This solution could be used to adjust the bend in the river making it slightly more accommodating to the turning of larger ships. Similar to the bulkhead, this approach would likely consist of a deep wall system toed into the very stiff clay soils below the weak clay layer. Tiebacks anchors would likely be required for this wall too, but would be need to be more robust to account for the steeper installation angle if they must remain completely within the City’s right of way. © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER 5 4.3.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR BOTH APPROACHES The bulkhead or retaining wall should extend from the Columbus Road Bridge east to where the bike path crosses Carter Road. The exact limits and depth of the bulkhead should be determined during the evaluation phase. Preliminarily, we have included an approximate location of proposed bulkhead and retaining wall on the attached Boring Location Plan. We anticipate that sheet-piling, tangential drilled piers, or modified H-piling systems for the bulkhead or retaining wall need to be driven or drilled at least 20 feet into the underlying till layer, bearing at or below elevation 510 feet. This would result in sheetpiling or wall sections in excess of 75 feet for the bulkhead and 100 feet for the retaining wall. Both approaches would likely require tiebacks, installed at a downward angle to anchor within the glacial till layer or possibly the shale bedrock if higher capacities are needed, below elevation 530 feet. The storm water discharge point, described in Section 1.1, is currently protected with a rock channel to minimize erosion. Both stabilization approaches will need to include maintaining this location. This may consist of a concrete headwall or buttress. 4.4 RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS We recommend that the City of Cleveland initiates a design evaluation phase to develop plan concepts for the slope repair. This should include determining the following design information:     The required embedment depth of sheet-piling or piers for the bulkhead wall or retaining wall. The appropriate length of the bulkhead wall or retaining wall. The required embedment depth for anchoring the tiebacks. Recommendations for regrading the slope between the bulkhead and the bike path, including the required slope angle to result in a FS of 1.3 to 1.5. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Brendan P. Lieske, PE Project Engineer John E. Dingeldein, PE Principal Consultant © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER 6 APPENDIX A BORING LOCATION PLAN BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY BORING LOGS BY SME BORING LOGS BY OTHERS ROCK CORE PHOTOGRAPH LOG ROCK CORE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS SLOPE STABILITY PROFILE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS INCLINOMETER PLOTS © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER B-002-0-08 NORTH (587.4') www.sme-usa.com Project CARTER ROAD SLIDE GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS Project Location LEGEND CARTER ROAD CLEVELAND, OH APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION BY SME APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION BY OTHERS INCLINOMETER LOCATION B-1 (610.1') SLOPE STABILITY PROFILE SCARP Sheet Name BORING LOCATION PLAN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED BULKHEAD B-2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (610.1') BT-4 (613±') BM, MONUMENTS FILE LOCATION: PROPERTY PIN BT-3 (613±') B-001-0-08 (605.8') M-11 (606.3') NMA-3 (611.6') NMA-1 (607.1') BS-4 (629.6') NOTE: DRAWING INFORMATION TAKEN FROM GOOGLE EARTH 1 02/13/2019 2 03/26/2019 3 3/27/2019 Date BS-3 (630.2') Revision Date No. 03/26/2019 CADD CHKD Scale Project JF BPL NTS 076822.27 Figure No. PLOT DATE: 1 B-6 (684±') DRAWING NOTE: SCALE DEPICTED IS MEANT FOR 11" X 17" AND WILL SCALE INCORRECTLY IF PRINTED ON ANY OTHER SIZE MEDIA NO REPRODUCTION SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF SME c 2019 BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED SOIL (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.) GW CU = Clean Gravel (Less than 5% fines) Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravel with fines (More than 12% fines) GM Silty gravel; gravel-sandsilt mixtures GC Clayey gravel; gravelsand-clay mixtures Clean Sand (Less than 5% fines) SAND 50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size SW Well-graded sand; sandgravel mixtures, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sand; sand-gravel mixtures, little or no fines Sand with fines (More than 12% fines) SM SC Silty sand; sand-siltgravel mixtures Clayey sand; sand–claygravel mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOIL (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size) ML SILT AND CLAY Liquid limit less than 50% CL SILT AND CLAY Liquid limit 50% or greater HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL Inorganic silt; sandy silt or gravelly silt with slight plasticity Inorganic clay of low plasticity; lean clay, sandy clay, gravelly clay OL Organic silt and organic clay of low plasticity 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 PT Peat and other highly organic soil OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS Topsoil Void Sandstone D60 D10 greater than 4; CC = D30 2 between 1 and 3 D10 x D60 GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW GM Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4 GC Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7 SW CU = D60 D10 greater than 6; CC = D30 2 between 1 and 3 D10 x D60 Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW SM Atterberg limits below “A” line or PI less than 4 SC Atterberg limits above “A” line with PI greater than 7 When laboratory tests are not performed to confirm the classification 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 finegrained soil: Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols SP     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 nonplastic 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 Above “A” line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols 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:           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) OL/OH (ORGANIC SILT or ORGANIC CLAY) Less than 5 percent……………………..……...GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent……………………..…….GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent……………...……..Cases requiring dual symbols DRILLING AND SAMPLING ABBREVIATIONS  SP-SM or SW-SM (SAND with Silt or SAND with Silt and Gravel)  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)  GM-GC (CLAYEY SILTY GRAVEL or CLAYEY SILTY GRAVEL with Sand) 2ST 3ST AS GS LS NR PM RC – – – – – – – – SB – VS WS – – OTHER ABBREVIATIONS Boulders Cobbles Gravel- Coarse Fine Sand- Coarse Medium Fine Silt and Clay - WOH WOR SP PID FID 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 (0.0074 mm) 60 50 CH A LINE PI=0.73 (LL-20) 30 CL MH & OH 20 10 ML & OL CL+ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Glacial Till Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Soil Probe Photo Ionization Device Flame Ionization Device DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES PLASTICITY CHART 40 – – – – – 90 100 Parting Seam Layer Stratum Pocket Lens Hardpan/Till – – – – – – – Lacustrine Mottled – – Varved – Occasional – Frequent – Interbedded – LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%) Asphalt Shelby Tube – 2” O.D. Shelby Tube – 3” O.D. Auger Sample Grab Sample Liner Sample No Recovery Pressure Meter 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 PARTICLE SIZES PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) (%) GRAVEL More than 50% of coarse fraction larger than No. 4 sieve size GW VISUAL MANUAL PROCEDURE LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA as much as 1/16 inch thick 1/16 inch to 1/2 inch thick 1/2 inch to 12 inches thick greater than 12 inches thick deposit of limited lateral extent lenticular deposit an unstratified, consolidated or cemented mixture of clay, silt, sand and/or gravel, the size/shape of the constituents vary widely soil deposited by lake water soil irregularly marked with spots of different colors that vary in number and size alternating partings or seams of silt and/or clay one or less per foot of thickness more than one per foot of thickness strata of soil or beds of rock lying between or alternating with other strata of a different nature CLASSIFICATION TERMINOLOGY AND CORRELATIONS Siltstone Base Coal Limestone Concrete Shale Fill Cohesive Soils Cohesionless Soils Relative Density N-Value (Blows per foot) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Extremely Dense 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 50 to 80 Over 80 Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard N-Value (Blows per foot) Undrained Shear Strength (kips/ft2) 0-2 2-4 4-8 8 - 15 15 - 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 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. BORING B-1 PAGE 1 OF 3 PROJECT NAME: Carter Road Slide Geotechnical Analysis PROJECT NUMBER: 076822.27 CLIENT: City of Cleveland PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio COMPLETED: 11/27/18 BORING METHOD: 4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger and Mud Rotary DRILLER: RH/RM RIG NO.: 525-CME550X-ATV LOGGED BY: JF 610 0 0.4 5 Inches of TOPSOIL FILL - Sand with Concrete and Wood Fragments - Dark Brown and Gray - Damp 609.7 10 20 Fine SAND with Clay - Trace Gravel - Brown - Most to Wet Very Loose to Loose (SP-SC) 30 SANDY SILT - Clay Seams Brown - Wet - Very Loose (ML) 38.0 SILTY CLAY - Trace Organics Gray - Stiff (CL) 48.0 LEAN CLAY - Gray - Varved Medium Stiff (CL) GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED BACKFILL METHOD: BLOWS PER SIX INCHES 10 20 LL 30 40 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 26 6 SB2 5 SB3 6 SB4 16 SB5 10 6 7 6 SB6 9 3 4 3 8 4 3 2 5 15 SB7 12 2 2 2 4 15 SB8 SB9 18 1 1 1 24 6 20 5 40 >> 60 30 13 19 7 21 2 24 SB11 18 1 2 2 SB12 18 2 3 6 9 562.1 3ST13 15 SB14 14 1 3 8 19 4 567.1 43.0 50 40 3 572.1 3ST10 SILTY SAND with Gravel - Brown - Very Loose to Loose (SM) 40 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 19 20 20 30 MC 577.1 33.0 570 PL 20 UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- 10 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR 100 110 120 582.1 28.0 580 90 SB1 607.1 FILL - Sand with Gravel, Clay, Slag, Cinders, and Organics Dark Brown and Black - Damp 590 RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE SURFACE ELEVATION: 610.1 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION 3.0 600 CHECKED BY: JED DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DATE STARTED: 11/20/18 25 30 0.7 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Groundwater not observed due to mud rotary drilling method. Inclinometer (Continued Next Page) BORING B-1 PAGE 2 OF 3 PROJECT NAME: Carter Road Slide Geotechnical Analysis PROJECT NUMBER: 076822.27 CLIENT: City of Cleveland PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio 60 20 30 40 10 20 24 SB16 18 552.1 3ST17 24 SB18 18 3 6 6 SB19 18 6 11 10 21 SB20 18 7 10 12 22 3ST21 24 SB22 11 5 5 11 SB23 18 7 8 15 3ST24 24 7 10 12 16 28 18 SB25 18 8 12 17 29 19 SB26 SB27 18 9 16 16 18 9 10 14 24 20 SB28 18 8 10 14 24 21 SB29 3ST30 24 SB31 9 5 8 9 SB32 18 8 11 12 LEAN CLAY - Gray - Stiff (CL) 1 1 4 70 28 5 22 12 21 24 LEAN CLAY - Sand Partings Gray - Varved - Very Stiff (CL) 530 80 520 510 500 90 LEAN CLAY with Sand - Trace Gravel - Gray - Very Stiff (CL) 100 110 116.8 21 16 22 23 528.4 81.8 LL 30 548.4 61.8 540 10 MC 3ST15 LEAN CLAY - Gray - Varved Medium Stiff (CL) (continued) 550 PL 5 58.0 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 610.1 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) 50 SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL DEPTH (FEET) 560 SYMBOLIC PROFILE ELEVATION (FEET) DRY DENSITY (pcf) -90 493.4 (Continued Next Page) 32 18 25 17 23 24 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 0.7 2 3 4 REMARKS BORING B-1 PAGE 3 OF 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 076822.27 CLIENT: City of Cleveland PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio 490 15 20 30 50 SB35 18 14 25 33 58 SB36 18 14 21 30 51 SB37 18 16 18 30 466.1 SB38 3 50/3" 20 LL 30 40 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 24 38 12 17 4.5+ 25 473.1 Sandy LEAN CLAY with Shale Fragments - Greenish Gray Hard (CL) 48 15 467.6 SHALE - Greenish Gray - Medium Hard 115.2 150 SHALE - Gray to Black - Slightly Weathered - Highly to Moderately Fractured - Medium to Moderately Hard Uniaxial compressive strength = 1,260 psi RC40 450 10 40 18 RC39 460 MC UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 477.1 137.0 144.0 30 SB34 SILTY CLAY - Gray - Hard (CL/ML) 142.5 20 15 18 20 130 133.0 470 10 18 LEAN CLAY with Sand, Gravel, and Shale Fragments - Gray Hard (CL) 140 PL HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR 487.1 123.0 480 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- SB33 SILT - Gray - Wet - Dense (ML) 120 90 BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 610.1 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) PROJECT NAME: Carter Road Slide Geotechnical Analysis 120 160 446.1 164.0 END OF BORING AT 164.0 FEET. 440 170 430 180 Uniaxial compressive strength = 830 psi BORING B-2 PAGE 1 OF 2 PROJECT NAME: Carter Road Slide Geotechnical Analysis PROJECT NUMBER: 076822.27 CLIENT: City of Cleveland PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio COMPLETED: 11/19/18 BORING METHOD: 4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger and Mud Rotary DRILLER: RH/RM RIG NO.: 525-CME550X-ATV LOGGED BY: JF 610 0 0.4 5 Inches of TOPSOIL 609.7 14.5 590 90 BLOWS PER SIX INCHES PL 10 6 4 3 4 6 7 20 30 40 MC 10 20 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 16 7 7 SB2 12 SB3 6 50/6" SB4 7 4 2 2 4 595.6 SB5 12 3 2 2 4 SB6 12 1 1 1 2 SB7 10 1 1 1 2 580.1 SB8 18 1 2 2 4 SB9 6 1 2 2 4 SB10 9 5 6 8 SB11 18 2 3 5 8 SB12 18 4 5 10 Fine to Coarse SAND with ClayTrace Gravel - Brown - Moist to Wet - Very Loose (SP-SC) 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- SB1 10 20 RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE SURFACE ELEVATION: 610.1 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION FILL - Sand with Gravel, Clay, Bricks, Concrete, Slag and Cinders - Dark Brown - Damp 600 CHECKED BY: JED DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DATE STARTED: 11/19/18 20 13 19 14 16 587.1 23.0 Fine to Coarse SAND - Brown Wet - Very Loose (SP) 580 30 30.0 SILTY CLAY - Gray - Soft to Medium Stiff (CL/ML) SILTY CLAY - Gray - Stiff (CL/ML) 40 SILTY CLAY - Trace Organics Gray - Medium Stiff to Stiff (CL/ML) 561.6 LEAN CLAY - Little Organics - 50 GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED BACKFILL METHOD: 14 20 568.1 42.0 48.5 24 573.4 36.8 570 11 27 29 0.6 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Groundwater not observed due to mud rotary drilling method. Bentonite & Cement (Continued Next Page) BORING B-2 PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT NAME: Carter Road Slide Geotechnical Analysis PROJECT NUMBER: 076822.27 CLIENT: City of Cleveland PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio Gray - Varved - Stiff (CL) SB13 18 2 4 5 SB14 18 2 2 4 SB15 18 1 4 5 SB16 18 5 7 8 SB17 18 8 12 18 530.1 SB18 18 7 12 15 LEAN CLAY - Gray - Medium Stiff (CL) 60 10 20 30 40 10 MC 20 LL 30 29 9 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 0.4 553.9 56.3 550 PL 5 LEAN CLAY - Little Organics Gray - Varved - Stiff (CL) (continued) 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 610.1 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) 50 SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL DEPTH (FEET) 560 SYMBOLIC PROFILE ELEVATION (FEET) DRY DENSITY (pcf) -90 6 30 0.6 31 0.5 548.9 61.3 9 LEAN CLAY - Gray - Stiff (CL) 540 70 538.1 72.0 SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT Gray - Very Stiff (CL/ML) 80 520 90 510 100 500 110 80.0 30 22 533.6 76.5 530 23 15 LEAN CLAY - Trace Gravel Gray - Very Stiff (CL) END OF BORING AT 80.0 FEET. 27 20 0.8 2 3 4 REMARKS BORING BS-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 SOLAR PROJECT NAME: Lake Link Homes Phase 1 PROJECT NUMBER: S016375 CLIENT: Lake Link LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Carter Road, Cleveland, Ohio DATE STARTED: 6/3/16 COMPLETED: 6/3/16 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger DRILLER: P. Simpson RIG NO.: LOGGED BY: Sam S. CHECKED BY: 0 SB1 7 20 50/1" SB2 18 6 11 10 SB3 18 8 22 20 SB4 18 7 4 3 7 SB5 18 5 4 3 7 SB6 8 50 50/4" SB7 18 2 2 2 SB8 18 6 6 5 SB9 18 7 8 8 630 FILL: Brown SAND, trace concrete, slag, brick fragments, rock fragments (Moist) 5 625 10 12.0 620 622.0 10.0 FILL: Brown fine SAND, trace gravel (Moist) 30 40 10 20 LL 30 40 UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 21 42 Concrete 616.0 16.0 615 20 MC HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR 620.0 FILL: Brown SILTY CLAY, little brick fragments, rocks fragments (Moist) 15 PL 10 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 632± FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DRY DENSITY (pcf) -90 FILL: Brown SAND, trace gravel (Moist) 613.0 19.0 20 610 Loose brown coarse SAND (Moist) 25 605.0 27.0 605 4 30 11 Medium dense brown SILTY SAND (Wet) 600 35 597.0 35.0 END OF BORING AT 35.0 FEET. GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT) DURING BORING: CAVE-IN OF BOREHOLE AT: BACKFILL METHOD: 26.0 606.0 23.0 609.0 16 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Reproduced Solar Testing Laboratories Broing Log BORING BS-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 SOLAR PROJECT NAME: Lake Link Homes Phase 1 PROJECT NUMBER: S016375 CLIENT: Lake Link LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Carter Road, Cleveland, Ohio DATE STARTED: 6/3/16 COMPLETED: 6/3/16 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger DRILLER: P. Simpson RIG NO.: LOGGED BY: Sam S. CHECKED BY: 0 630 FILL: Black and brown SILTY SAND, trace wood, rock fragments (Moist) 18 32 9 6 SB2 10 8 10 13 SB3 18 11 15 20 SB4 18 9 12 15 SB5 18 12 11 11 SB6 18 4 2 2 SB7 18 3 2 5 SB8 18 4 5 6 11 SB9 18 4 3 6 9 625.0 6.0 20 SB1 5 625 PL 10 10 30 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 631± FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DRY DENSITY (pcf) -90 40 10 MC 20 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 15 23 35 27 620 FILL: Black to brown SAND, trace concrete, rock fragments, brick fragments (Moist) 15 22 615 20 611.0 20.0 4 Trace gravel, cinders, slag 610 25 7 605 Loose to medium dense brown fine SAND (Moist to Wet) 30 600 597.0 34.0 35 35.0 595 Stiff gray SILTY CLAY (Wet) END OF BORING AT 35.0 FEET. GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT) DURING BORING: CAVE-IN OF BOREHOLE AT: BACKFILL METHOD: 596.0 Color change to gray 25.0 606.0 23.5 607.5 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Reproduced Solar Testing Laboratories Broing Log BORING BT-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 SOLAR PROJECT NAME: Lake Link Homes Phase 1 PROJECT NUMBER: S016375 CLIENT: Lake Link LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Carter Road, Cleveland, Ohio COMPLETED: 6/3/16 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger DRILLER: P. Simpson RIG NO.: LOGGED BY: Sam S. CHECKED BY: 0 SB1 18 6 7 7 SB2 10 1 0 1 SB3 18 3 14 10 SB4 18 1 2 3 SB5 18 4 7 5 FILL: Brown SILTY SAND, trace rock fragments (Moist) 610 5 606.5 6.5 90 PL 10 20 30 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 613± FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DATE STARTED: 6/3/16 40 10 MC 20 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 14 Some coal, wood 1 24 605 10 Dense brown SILTY SAND, trace rock fragments (Moist) 5 600 15 598.0 15.0 END OF BORING AT 15.0 FEET. 12 Trace CLAY 595 20 590 25 585 30 580 35 GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT) CAVE-IN OF BOREHOLE AT: BACKFILL METHOD: 10.0 603.0 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Reproduced Solar Testing Laboratories Broing Log BORING BT-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 SOLAR PROJECT NAME: Lake Link Homes Phase 1 PROJECT NUMBER: S016375 CLIENT: Lake Link LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Carter Road, Cleveland, Ohio COMPLETED: 6/3/16 BORING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger DRILLER: P. Simpson RIG NO.: LOGGED BY: Sam S. CHECKED BY: 0 FILL: Black to brown SILTY SAND, trace rock fragments (Moist) 18 3 4 3 7 SB3 18 10 6 2 8 SB4 18 2 2 2 SB5 15 3 3 3 606.5 20 30 40 10 MC 20 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 17 SB2 5 6.5 PL 10 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- 8 8 9 SB1 610 90 BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 613± FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DATE STARTED: 6/3/16 Trace cinders 605 10 Medium dense to loose brown fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel (Moist) 4 600 15 598.0 15.0 END OF BORING AT 15.0 FEET. 6 595 20 590 25 585 30 580 35 GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT) CAVE-IN OF BOREHOLE AT: BACKFILL METHOD: 10.0 603.0 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Reproduced Solar Testing Laboratories Broing Log BORING B-6 PAGE 1 OF 3 SOLAR PROJECT NAME: Scranton/Carter Road Rehabilitation PROJECT NUMBER: A14585x10 CLIENT: Machael Baker Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio DATE STARTED: 12/18/14 COMPLETED: 12/18/14 BORING METHOD: 2 1/4" Hollow Stem Augers DRILLER: D. Simpson RIG NO.: LOGGED BY: S. Canning CHECKED BY: 0 680 5 FILL: Brown SAND, little gravel, trace clay, brick fragments, sandstone frgaments, slag, black organics (wood fragments) (Damp) 675 30 10 40 SB1 9 SB2 7 2 3 6 9 SB3 5 3 3 8 11 SB4 5 6 2 4 SB5 18 23 41 42 83 SB6 17 28 48 45 93 SB7 9 10 4 4 MC 20 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 10 6 670.5 13.5 670 15 FILL: Black SAND and crushed oil-covered LIMESTONE (Damp) 20 660.5 23.5 660 POSSIBLE FILL: Medium dense brown COARSE SAND, little gravel, trace sandstone fragments, slag (Damp) 25 20 6 6 4 1 10 665 PL 10 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 684 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) DRY DENSITY (pcf) -90 8 Petroleum Odor 655.5 28.5 655 SB8 14 2 2 2 SB9 12 2 5 8 30 22 4 Loose brown SILTY SAND, trace gravel, clay (Damp) 650.5 33.5 650 35 GROUNDWATER & BACKFILL INFORMATION DEPTH (FT) ELEV (FT) DURING BORING: CAVE-IN OF BOREHOLE AT: 90.0 594.0 46.0 638.0 13 NOTES: 1. The indicated stratification lines are approximate. In situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. 2. Reproduced Solar Testing Laboratories Broing Log BACKFILL METHOD: (Continued Next Page) BORING B-6 PAGE 2 OF 3 SOLAR PROJECT NUMBER: A14585x10 CLIENT: Machael Baker Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio 35 Medium dense brown COARSE SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, clay (Damp) (continued) 645 40 100 110 120 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- PL 10 20 SB10 12 6 7 8 15 SB11 15 7 7 9 16 SB12 18 5 9 11 SB13 18 5 5 8 SB14 17 3 5 5 SB15 18 7 7 15 SB16 18 22 32 40 SB17 18 15 17 19 SB18 18 9 12 15 30 10 40 MC 20 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS 4 640.5 43.5 640 45 Medium dense brown FINE SAND, trace silt, clay (Damp) 635 90 BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 684 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) PROJECT NAME: Scranton/Carter Road Rehabilitation 50 10 20 630.5 53.5 630 55 24 13 Medium dense brown SILTY SAND, trace clay (Damp) 625.5 58.5 625 60 620 65 615 70 610 Medium dense to dense gray SILT, little sand, clay, trace back organics (A-4b) (Damp) 75 605 80 20 10 (Continued Next Page) 21 22 Non-plastic 72 36 27 20 BORING B-6 PAGE 3 OF 3 SOLAR PROJECT NUMBER: A14585x10 CLIENT: Machael Baker Corporation PROJECT LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio Very stiff gray SILT, little clay (Moist) 585 580 105 575 110 570 115 565 120 560 125 10 20 18 7 12 16 SB20 18 5 6 10 16 SB21 18 5 7 9 16 90 100 PL 30 40 10 MC 20 28 18 595.5 88.5 595 95 MOISTURE & ATTERBERG LIMITS (%) N-VALUE -- SB19 Dense gray FINE SAND and SILT, trace black organics (Damp) 590 100 110 120 600.5 83.5 600 85 90 BLOWS PER SIX INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION: 684 FT PROFILE DESCRIPTION RECOVERY LENGTH (INCHES) SAMPLE TYPE/NO. INTERVAL SYMBOLIC PROFILE DRY DENSITY (pcf) -- DEPTH (FEET) ELEVATION (FEET) PROJECT NAME: Scranton/Carter Road Rehabilitation 584.0 100.0 END OF BORING AT 100.0 FEET. SB22 4 8 10 18 21 LL 30 40 HAND PENE. TORVANE SHEAR UNC.COMP. VANE SHEAR (PK) VANE SHEAR (REM) TRIAXIAL (UU) SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1 2 3 4 REMARKS CARTER ROAD SLIDE GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS CLEVELAND, OHIO SME 076822.27 B-1, RUN 1: NWL CORE 144.0 TO 154.0 FEET. B-1, RUN 2: NWL CORE 154.0 TO 164.0 FEET. Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens ASTM D7012 PROJECT LOCATION DATE PROJECT # CLIENT Carter Road Slide Cleveland, Ohio December 11, 2018 076822.27 City of Cleveland SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION DATE TESTED ORIGINAL LENGTH, in CAPPED LENGTH, in DIAMETER, in AREA, sq. in. LOAD AT FAILURE, lbs. GROSS UNIT STRESS, psi LENGTH/DIAMETER RATIO CORRECTION FACTOR UNIT STRESS CORRECTED, psi MOISTURE CONDITION WHEN TESTED 1 2 B-1; 154' August 17, 2016 --4.39 1.97 3.05 3,845 1,261 2.2 1.0 1260 B-1; 164' August 17, 2016 --4.36 1.95 2.99 2,470 827 2.2 1.0 830 MOIST MOIST REMARKS: Correction factor used from ASTM C39, section 8.2 Samples tested do not meet the requirements for sample preparation per ASTM D4543 3 4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST, ASTM D3080 9375 Chillicothe Road, Kirtland, Ohio 44094-8501 SAMPLE #: SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SOIL STRUCTURE: SHEAR DEVICE: TEST CONDITIONS: TECHNICIAN: p: 440-256-6500, f: 440-256-6500 PROJECT: LOCATION: PROJECT #: CLIENT: TEST DATE(S): Carter Road Landslide Cleveland, Ohio 076822.27 City of Cleveland 1/2/2019 ST B-1; 36.5' - 38.5' Brown SANDY SILT Undisturbed Tecnotest Shear box saturated SM CONSOLIDATION PHASE SHEAR PHASE 0.000 0.00 4 ksf -0.02 6 ksf Vertical displacement, in. Vertical displacement, in. 2 ksf -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.005 -0.010 -0.015 -0.07 2 ksf 4 ksf -0.08 6 ksf -0.020 0.00 -0.09 0 20 40 Time, min. 60 80 SHEAR PHASE 6000 0.10 0.20 0.30 Horizontal displacement, in. 0.50 R² = 0.9996 SHEAR PHASE 6000 0.40 2 ksf 4 ksf 6 ksf 5000 5000 4000 Shear stress, psf Shear stress, psf 4000 3000 2000 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Horizontal displacement, in. Normal stress (psf): Thickness (in): Diameter (in): Dry mass sample (gr): Initial moisture content (%): Initial wet density (pcf): Initial dry density (pcf): Final moisture content (%): Final wet density (pcf): Final dry density (pcf): LAB-51 2000 1000 1000 0 0.00 3000 Sample Parameters 2000 4000 6000 0.999 2.500 151.8 151.3 151.1 17.2 17.3 18.5 137.7 137.5 138.7 117.5 117.2 117.0 15.3 15.1 16.7 143.3 145.4 153.0 124.3 126.4 131.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Normal stress, psf Normal stress (psf): Final vertical displacement (in): Duration consolidation (min): Peak shear stress (psf): Horizontal displacement (in): Shear rate (mm/min): Duration of test (min): f (deg): Cohesion (psf): 5000 6000 Test Results 2000 4000 6000 CONSOLIDATION PHASE -0.041 -0.056 -0.083 72.2 72.7 42.8 SHEAR PHASE 1438 2816 4195 0.093 0.175 0.146 0.010 0.011 0.008 885 855 1140 35.1 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST, ASTM D3080 9375 Chillicothe Road, Kirtland, Ohio 44094-8501 SAMPLE #: SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SOIL STRUCTURE: SHEAR DEVICE: TEST CONDITIONS: TECHNICIAN: p: 440-256-6500, f: 440-256-6500 PROJECT: LOCATION: PROJECT #: CLIENT: TEST DATE(S): Carter Road Landslide Cleveland, Ohio 076822.27 City of Cleveland 1/7/2019 ST B-1; 51.5' - 53.5' Gray LEAN CLAY Undisturbed Humboldt Shear box saturated SM CONSOLIDATION PHASE SHEAR PHASE 0.000 0.00 -0.01 4 ksf -0.02 8 ksf -0.03 Vertical displacement, in. -0.04 Vertical displacement, in. -0.005 12 ksf -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.10 -0.11 -0.12 -0.010 -0.015 -0.020 -0.025 -0.13 4 ksf -0.14 -0.030 -0.15 8 ksf 12 ksf -0.16 -0.035 0.00 -0.17 0 20 40 Time, min. 60 80 SHEAR PHASE 12000 0.10 0.20 4 ksf Linear (POST PEAK STRESS) 12 ksf 10000 8000 Shear stress, psf Shear stress, psf 8000 6000 4000 6000 4000 2000 2000 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Horizontal displacement, in. Normal stress (psf): Thickness (in): Diameter (in): Dry mass sample (gr): Initial moisture content (%): Initial wet density (pcf): Initial dry density (pcf): Final moisture content (%): Final wet density (pcf): Final dry density (pcf): LAB-51 0.50 Linear (PEAK STRESS) 8 ksf 0 0.00 0.40 SHEAR PHASE 12000 10000 0.30 Horizontal displacement, in. Sample Parameters 4000 8000 12000 0.999 2.500 121.6 121.5 121.2 29.5 29.3 30.2 122.0 121.7 122.2 94.2 94.1 93.8 29.6 28.0 26.4 131.4 141.9 147.1 101.4 110.9 116.4 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Normal stress, psf Normal stress (psf): Final vertical displacement (in): Duration consolidation (min): Peak Shear Stress (psf): Horizontal displacement (in): Post Peak Shear Stress (psf): Horizontal displacement (in): Shear rate (mm/min): Duration of test (min): Peak: Post Peak: 10000 12000 Test Results 4000 8000 12000 CONSOLIDATION PHASE -0.048 -0.116 -0.156 44.5 39.5 64.0 SHEAR PHASE 1672 3051 4547 0.167 0.138 0.177 1496 2464 3432 0.504 0.505 0.503 0.010 0.010 0.010 1290 1305 1290 f (deg) 20.9 16.6 C (psf) 0 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST, ASTM D3080 9375 Chillicothe Road, Kirtland, Ohio 44094-8501 SAMPLE #: SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SOIL STRUCTURE: SHEAR DEVICE: TEST CONDITIONS: TECHNICIAN: p: 440-256-6500, f: 440-256-6500 PROJECT: LOCATION: PROJECT #: CLIENT: TEST DATE(S): Carter Road Landslide Cleveland, Ohio 076822.27 City of Cleveland 1/2/2019 ST B-1; 73.5' - 75.5' Gray LEAN CLAY Undisturbed Humboldt Shear box saturated SM CONSOLIDATION PHASE SHEAR PHASE 0.000 0.01 6 ksf 0.00 10 ksf 14 ksf -0.005 Vertical displacement, in. Vertical displacement, in. -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.010 -0.015 -0.06 6 ksf 10 ksf -0.07 14 ksf -0.020 0.00 -0.08 0 20 40 Time, min. 60 80 SHEAR PHASE 14000 0.10 0.20 Linear (POST PEAK STRESS) 10 ksf 12000 14 ksf 10000 Shear stress, psf Shear stress, psf 10000 8000 6000 8000 6000 4000 4000 2000 2000 0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Horizontal displacement, in. Normal stress (psf): Thickness (in): Diameter (in): Dry mass sample (gr): Initial moisture content (%): Initial wet density (pcf): Initial dry density (pcf): Final moisture content (%): Final wet density (pcf): Final dry density (pcf): LAB-51 0.50 Linear (PEAK STRESS) 6 ksf 0 0.00 0.40 SHEAR PHASE 14000 12000 0.30 Horizontal displacement, in. Sample Parameters 6000 10000 14000 0.999 2.500 136.8 138.7 139.2 21.8 21.5 21.3 129.0 130.5 130.8 105.9 107.4 107.8 21.6 21.0 20.9 136.8 138.1 143.4 112.4 114.2 118.6 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Normal stress, psf Normal stress (psf): Final vertical displacement (in): Duration consolidation (min): Peak Shear Stress (psf): Horizontal displacement (in): Post Peak Shear Stress (psf): Horizontal displacement (in): Shear rate (mm/min): Duration of test (min): Peak: Post Peak: 10000 12000 14000 Test Results 6000 10000 14000 CONSOLIDATION PHASE -0.043 -0.039 -0.068 72.5 72.7 43.3 SHEAR PHASE 3550 5310 7950 0.143 0.126 0.147 2846 4225 6396 0.503 0.505 0.502 0.010 0.010 0.010 1290 1305 1290 f (deg) 29.2 24.1 C (psf) 0 0 Unit Weight (lbs/ 3) Strength Type FILL 128 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SAND WITH SILT 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 SILT 1 140 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 CL 1 122 Mohr-Coulomb 0 16.6 CL 2 130 Mohr-Coulomb 0 29 TILL 1 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SILT 2 142 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 TILL 2 143 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32 SHALE 145 Mohr-Coulomb 1500 40 Material Name Color Cohesion Phi (psf) (deg) SOLAR B-6 CARTER ROAD SME B-1 B-2 BBCM B-002-0-08 SOLAR SOLAR BT-3 & BT-4 BS-3 & BS-4 W W WEAK, VARVED LEAN/SILTY CLAY LAYER 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Project 076822.27_Carter Road Slope Analysis Author Date SLIDE 8.016 Slope Profile Jalal Fatemi Company SME 1/31/2019, 5:27:24 PM File Name 076822.27.slmd 700 Method Name Min FS Bishop simplified 0.632 Janbu simplified 0.597 Spencer 0.623 GLE / Morgenstern-Price 0.616 Unit Weight (lbs/ 3) Strength Type FILL 128 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SAND WITH SILT 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 SILT 1 140 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 CL 1 122 Mohr-Coulomb 0 16.6 CL 2 130 Mohr-Coulomb 0 29 TILL 1 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SILT 2 142 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 TILL 2 143 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32 SHALE 145 Mohr-Coulomb 1500 40 Material Name Color Cohesion Phi (psf) (deg) 1.022 0.632 W W 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Project 076822.27_Carter Road Analysis Description Drawn By Date SLIDEINTERPRET 8.016 Down Slope_Non-circular JF 2/13/2019 12:18:35 PM Scale 1:950 Company SME File Name 076822.27.slmd 700 1.450 Method Name Min FS Bishop simplified 1.043 Janbu simplified 1.030 Spencer 1.055 GLE / Morgenstern-Price 1.060 1.285 1.043 Unit Weight (lbs/ 3) Strength Type FILL 128 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SAND WITH SILT 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 SILT 1 140 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 CL 1 122 Mohr-Coulomb 0 16.6 CL 2 130 Mohr-Coulomb 0 29 TILL 1 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SILT 2 142 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 TILL 2 143 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32 SHALE 145 Mohr-Coulomb 1500 40 Material Name Color Cohesion Phi (psf) (deg) W W 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Project 076822.27_Carter Road Analysis Description Drawn By Date SLIDEINTERPRET 8.016 Mid Slope_Non-circular JF 2/13/2019 12:15:50 PM Scale 1:1000 Company SME File Name 076822.27.slmd 700 1.075 Method Name Bishop simplified 1.133 Janbu simplified 1.075 Spencer 1.166 GLE / Morgenstern-Price 1.159 Unit Weight (lbs/ 3) Strength Type FILL 128 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SAND WITH SILT 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 SILT 1 140 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 CL 1 122 Mohr-Coulomb 0 16.6 Material Name Color -100 Min FS Cohesion Phi (psf) (deg) CL 2 130 Mohr-Coulomb 0 29 TILL 1 138 Mohr-Coulomb 0 31 SILT 2 142 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35 TILL 2 143 Mohr-Coulomb 0 32 SHALE 145 Mohr-Coulomb 1500 40 W 0 100 200 W 300 400 500 600 700 Project 076822.27_Carter Road Analysis Description Drawn By Date SLIDEINTERPRET 8.016 Top Slope_Non-circular JF 2/13/2019 12:11:57 PM Scale 1:1100 Company SME File Name 076822.27.slmd 800 RST Instruments Ltd. CUMULATIVE DISPLACEMENT Inclinalysis v. 2.48.7 Borehole : B-1 Project : 076822.27_Carter Road Slope Failure Location : Cleveland, OH Northing : 664603.7174 Easting : 2187952.388 Collar : Spiral Correction : N/A Collar Elevation : 0.00 feet Reading Depth : 160.0 feet A+ Groove Azimuth : Base Reading : 2018 Dec 07 14:19 Applied Azimuth : 0.0 degrees Axis - B 0 -10 -10 -20 -20 -30 -30 -40 -40 -50 -50 -60 -60 -70 -70 Depth (feet) Depth (feet) Axis - A 0 -80 -90 -80 -90 -100 -100 -110 -110 -120 -120 -130 -130 -140 -140 -150 -150 -160 -160 B-1(4) 06-Feb-19 B-1(3) 21-Dec-18 -170 -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 -0.000.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Cumulative Displacement (inches) B-1(4) 06-Feb-19 B-1(3) 21-Dec-18 -170 -0.50 -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 -0.000.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Cumulative Displacement (inches) APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS © 2019 SME 076822.27+032919+GER Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civilworks constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnicalengineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical­ engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmationdependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnicalengineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members, • help develop specifications, • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnicalengineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not buildingenvelope or mold specialists. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent GENERAL COMMENTS BASIS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices to assist in the design and/or evaluation of this project. If the project plans, design criteria, and other project information referenced in this report and utilized by SME to prepare our recommendations are changed, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or approved in writing by our office. The discussions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the available project information, described in this report, and the geotechnical data obtained from the field exploration at the locations indicated in the report. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions commonly occur between or away from sampling locations. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until the time of construction. If significant variations are observed during construction, SME should be contacted to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. SME should be retained to continue our services through construction to observe and evaluate the actual subsurface conditions relative to the recommendations made in this report. In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil and foundation engineering. Specifically, field logs are prepared during the field exploration that describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. Samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the report logs. The engineer preparing the report reviews the field logs, laboratory classifications, and test data and then prepares the report logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the report logs and the information contained therein. REVIEW OF DESIGN DETAILS, PLANS, AND SPECIFICATIONS SME should be retained to review the design details, project plans, and specifications to verify those documents are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report. REVIEW OF REPORT INFORMATION WITH PROJECT TEAM Implementation of our recommendations may affect the design, construction, and performance of the proposed improvements, along with the potential inherent risks involved with the proposed construction. The client and key members of the design team, including SME, should discuss the issues covered in this report so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk, and expectations for performance and maintenance. FIELD VERIFICATION OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS SME should be retained to verify the recommendations of this report are properly implemented during construction. This may avoid misinterpretation of our recommendations by other parties and will allow us to review and modify our recommendations if variations in the site subsurface conditions are encountered. PROJECT INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTOR This report and any future addenda or other reports regarding this site should be made available to prospective contractors prior to submitting their proposals for their information only and to supply them with facts relative to the subsurface evaluation and laboratory test results. If the selected contractor encounters subsurface conditions during construction, which differ from those presented in this report, the contractor should promptly describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and SME should be notified so that we can verify those conditions. The construction contract should include provisions for dealing with differing conditions and contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction. We would be pleased to assist you in developing the contract provisions based on our experience. The contractor should be prepared to handle environmental conditions encountered at this site, which may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. Any Environmental Assessment reports prepared for this site should be made available for review by bidders and the successful contractor. THIRD PARTY RELIANCE/REUSE OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared solely for the use of our Client for the project specifically described in this report. This report cannot be relied upon by other parties not involved in the project, unless specifically allowed by SME in writing. SME also is not responsible for the interpretation by other parties of the geotechnical data and the recommendations provided herein. © 2009 SME General Comments 1 Passionate People Building and Revitalizing our World 5