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
(Investigation, Analysis, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)
Wetland or Peat Remediation
(Investigation, Analysis, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)
Underground Mine Remediation
(Investigation, Analysis, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)
Surface Mine Remediation
(Investigation, Analysis, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)
Karst Remediation
(Investigation, Analysis, Design, Plans and Contract Documents)
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
other (describe other methods)
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
If soil conditions and project requirements
warrant, have stability issues been addressed?
If not applicable (X), go to Question 29
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?
III.B. Embankments Checklist
Stability (Y/N/X) Notes:
17
18
a.
b.
c.
d.
19
20
21
22
23
Has a method been chosen as a solution to the
stability issues?
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)?
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
other (describe other methods)
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?
III.B. Embankments Checklist
Stability (Y/N/X) Notes:
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?
If soil conditions and project requirements
warrant, have sidehill fill issues been addressed?
If not applicable (X), go to Question 34
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?
III.B. Embankments Checklist
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:
laboratory shear tests
other (describe other methods)
Check method used:
laboratory shear tests
estimation from SPT or field tests
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:
laboratory shear tests
estimation from SPT or field tests
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
Design (Y/N/X) Notes:
14
15
16 Has a cost comparison been performed to
evaluate a recommended solution compared to
others?
Based on accepted design practices, and where
applicable, adhering to published guidelines and
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
other (describe other methods)
geosynthetic reinforced slope
install surface / subsurface drainage system
shear key (See GB 2)
soil nails or tiebacks
V.A. Landslide Remediation Checklist
Plans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:
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:
Exploration (Y/N/X) Notes:
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
researched, including movement history,
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?
Have a site plan and cross sections been
provided to compare ground surface conditions,
before and after failure?
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
Design (Y/N/X) Notes:
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
Design (Y/N/X) Notes:
28
29
30
31
32
33
Plans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:
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?
Has the information obtained from the
exploration and analysis been incorporated into
the project design?
Has a cost comparison been performed to
evaluate a recommended solution compared 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?
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?
Have all necessary notes, specifications, and plan
details been developed?
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:
Exploration (Y/N/X) Notes:
1
2
3
4
Analysis (Y/N/X) Notes:
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
Design (Y/N/X) Notes:
10
11
12
Plans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:
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
issues incorporated into final design?
Has the vertical and lateral extent of defined
wetland/peat conditions been included on the
Cross Sections and Plan and Profile sheets?
Has the information obtained from the
exploration and analysis been incorporated into
the project design?
Have the need, location, plan notes, and reading
schedule of instrumentation been determined?
Has an assessment of groundwater impacts been
conducted on the preferred remediation
method?
Has a cost comparison been performed to
evaluate the recommended remediation method
compared to others?
Have all necessary notes, specifications, and plan
details been developed?
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
other (describe other methods)
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:
Exploration (Y/N/X) Notes:
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)
quality and quantity of water 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)
quality and quantity of water within the
abandoned underground mine(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?
Has a cost comparison been performed to
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:
Exploration (Y/N/X) Notes:
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.
Analysis (Y/N/X) Notes:
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?
Has a cost comparison been performed to
evaluate a recommended solution compared to
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
proposed remediation on any structures (e.g.,
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
Sections and Plan and Profile sheets?
Has the information obtained from the
exploration and analysis been incorporated into
the project design?
Have all necessary notes, specifications, and plan
details been developed?
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:
Exploration (Y/N/X) Notes:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Analysis (Y/N/X) Notes:
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
researched, including movement history,
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)?
Have a site plan and cross sections been
provided comparing ground surface conditions,
before and after failure?
V.F. Karst Remediation Checklist
Design (Y/N/X) Notes:
11
12
13
Plans and Contract Documents (Y/N/X) Notes:
14
15
16
17
18
19
Has the information obtained from the
exploration and analysis been incorporated into
the project design?
Has the vertical and lateral extent of defined
karst conditions been included on the Cross
Sections and Plan and Profile sheets?
Have all necessary notes, specifications, and plan
details been developed?
Have the effects of the original failure and
proposed remediation on any structures (e.g.,
bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) been
evaluated and solutions to any issues
incorporated into final design?
Have the need, location, plan notes, and reading
schedule of instrumentation been determined?
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?
Has a cost comparison been performed to
evaluate a recommended solution compared to
others?
Has a remediation method been determined?
other (describe other methods)
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
Section 705.5 of the SGE?
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
Section 705.8 of the SGE?
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