DOCSLIB.ORG

GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED STEEP SLOPES Published: March 2016 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED STEEP SLOPES Published: March 2016 6 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-14/0-6792-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED STEEP SLOPES Published: March 2016 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Yoo Jae Kim, Jiong Hu, Soon Jae Lee, Ashley Russell Kotwal, and Report 0-6792-1 Justin Wayne Dickey 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas State University Department of Engineering Technology 11. Contract or Grant No. 601 University Drive Project 0-6792 San Marcos, Texas 78666 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2012–November 2013 125 E. 11th Street 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78701-2483 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation: Project Title: Synthesis on Geosynthetic Reinforced Steep Slopes URL: 16. Abstract Geosynthetics provide a means to mechanically stabilize earth structures by improving strength through tensile reinforcement. When incorporating these polymeric materials in the application of stabilizing steep slopes, geosynthetic reinforcement can accommodate budgetary restrictions and alleviate space constraints. TxDOT currently has limited use of geosynthetics in steep slope construction. Therefore, a synthesis study of geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes has been conducted to enhance the present understanding of this technology. The study summarized the benefits and limitations of utilizing geosynthetic reinforcement and investigated current design and construction methods in order to determine best practices. Additionally, the cost effectiveness of geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes was examined. Case studies were also identified and assessed to determine optimal soil conditions, geometry of the slope, design criteria, construction specifications, and performance measures. The synthesis study summarized best practices, existing methodologies, and recommendations for the use of geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes in Texas. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Geosynthetic, Geogrid, Geotextile, Reinforced Soil, No restrictions. This document is available to the Slope, Embankment public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service Alexandria, VA 22312 http://www.ntis.gov 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 184 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED STEEP SLOPES by Yoo Jae Kim Assistant Professor Texas State University Jiong Hu Associate Professor Texas State University Soon Jae Lee Associate Professor Texas State University Ashley Russell Kotwal Doctoral Research Assistant Texas State University and Justin Wayne Dickey Graduate Research Assistant Texas State University Report 0-6792-1 Project 0-6792 Project Title: Synthesis on Geosynthetic Reinforced Steep Slopes Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration Published: March 2016 TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Engineering Technology 601 University Drive San Marcos, TX 78666 DISCLAIMER This research was performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of TxDOT. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report is not intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. The researcher in charge of the project was Dr. Yoo Jae Kim. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful for the support and guidance of Kevin Pete, Project Manager of Research and Technology Implementation. In addition, the authors thank Marie Fisk for her valuable comments during the project. The authors also acknowledge ADAMA Engineering for providing software that was essential for completing the design example. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Research Significance ................................................................................................................. 2 Definition .................................................................................................................................... 2 Background and History ............................................................................................................. 3 Geosynthetics .............................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter II: Design Methods and Materials ................................................................................ 7 Design Methods .......................................................................................................................... 7 FHWA Design Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 22 Design Software ........................................................................................................................ 37 Foundation and Backfill Materials ........................................................................................... 38 Geosynthetic Materials ............................................................................................................. 42 Chapter III: Construction Practices ......................................................................................... 45 Construction Sequence ............................................................................................................. 45 Transportation Agency Specifications ...................................................................................... 47 Weak Foundation Soil .............................................................................................................. 48 Contracting Methods ................................................................................................................. 49 Site Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 50 Additional Considerations ........................................................................................................ 51 Chapter IV: Performance Measures and Cost Effectiveness ................................................. 53 Quality Control ......................................................................................................................... 53 Field Inspection ......................................................................................................................... 54 Performance Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 54 Lifespan .................................................................................................................................... 55 Failure Modes ........................................................................................................................... 56 Cost Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 57 Additional Considerations ........................................................................................................ 58 Chapter V: Case Studies ............................................................................................................ 61 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Geosynthetic Material ............................................................................................................... 61 Foundation and Backfill Material ............................................................................................. 62 Slope Geometry ........................................................................................................................ 63 Design Methods ........................................................................................................................ 64 Construction Practices .............................................................................................................. 64 Performance .............................................................................................................................. 65 Cost Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 65 vii Chapter VI: Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GEOSYNTHETICS Our Solutions for the Infrastructure in Mining
    GEOSYNTHETICS Our solutions for the infrastructure in mining Protective Fabrics Geosynthetics Outdoor Fabrics Grass Advanced Composites Advanced Armour OUR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY TenCate Bidim® S TenCate Polyfelt® TS TenCate Rock® PEC TenCate Miragrid GX TenCate Geosynthetics offers efficient and economical solutions which cover different applications: PORT EXPANSION ROADS & RAILROAD TRACKS DUMPWALL 2 OUR ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY TenCate Geolon® PET TenCate Geolon® PP TenCate Bidim® AR TenCate GeoDetect® S-BR WORKING PLATFORMS TAILING PONDS 3 HAUL ROADS AND WORKING PLATFORMS Your quick and safe access to the mine Access roads, railway tracks and platforms are crucial for the Separation mining activities as all heavy plant and machinery are required Geosynthetics prevent upper granular layers to access the mine. penetrating soft subgrades beneath, so Geosynthetics from TenCate have been used over 40 years to reducing the amount of granular material stabilise temporary and permanent road constructions, required to stabilize a structure. showing significant benefits: • Cost saving and lower environmental impact by the Our solutions: reduction of granular layer thickness to stabilize the TenCate Bidim® S and TenCate Polyfelt® TS platform • No mixing between the granular materials of the road Filtration construction and the subgrade leading to an improved When used as filters, geotextiles permit the bearing capacity and performance free flow of water from a soil mass, while • Stronger platforms over time due to the reinforcement. inhibiting fine particle movement from the soil, thus stabilising the overall structure. TenCate Geosynthetics offer a complete range of products and solutions to fulfil the different functions involved in the Our solutions: construction of trafficked areas.
    [Show full text]
  • REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces
    ® BODPAVE 85 PAVING GRIDS Data Sheet No : SDI / B85PRD09 Issue 2 'REDUCED DIG' INSTALLATION GUIDANCE Gravel & Grassed Surfaces The ‘Reduced Dig’ method of installation for BodPave ®85 is suitable for pedestrian and light vehicle applications where firm ground conditions already exist. It is particularly advantageous where there are budgetary limitations, restrictions on excavation due to SSSI conservation and archeological issues or Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). BENEFITS OF REDUCED DIG APPLICATIONS Minimal site preparation or variation to existing levels Light vehicle parking and access routes Reduced installation time and costs Pedestrian access & Cycle routes Reduced import of materials and disposal of debris Tree root protection Rapid establishment and usage of site after installation Golf buggy paths and Tow paths Compliant with current guidance for Sustainable Caravan and Leisure site access routes Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Wheelchair and disabled access (DDA compliant) Suitable for grass or gravel surfaces Light aircraft parking and taxiways SITE SUITABILITY BodPave ®85 Where existing ground with Grass or Gravel conditions are firm Sand : Soil (ie: CBR > 7%) Rootzone or BGT100 Gravel Bedding and free draining upper Geotextile filter or where a suitable fabric option hardcore/stone base already exists. DoT (GSB) ‘Type 1’ or reduced fines Where trafficking is ‘Type 3’ Sub-base irregular or occasional Where loads will not Tensar TriAx ™ exceed that of cars TX160 geogrid BGT100 and light vans option Lower Geotextile layer option
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanically Stabilized Embankments
    Part 8 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EMBANKMENTS First Reinforced Earth wall in USA -1969 Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSEs) utilize tensile reinforcement in many different forms: from galvanized metal strips or ribbons, to HDPE geotextile mats, like that shown above. This reinforcement increases the shear strength and bearing capacity of the backfill. Reinforced Earth wall on US 50 Geotextiles can be layered in compacted fill embankments to engender additional shear strength. Face wrapping allows slopes steeper than 1:1 to be constructed with relative ease A variety of facing elements may be used with MSEs. The above photo illustrates the use of hay bales while that at left uses galvanized welded wire mesh HDPE geotextiles can be used as wrapping elements, as shown at left above, or attached to conventional gravity retention elements, such as rock-filled gabion baskets, sketched at right. Welded wire mesh walls are constructed using the same design methodology for MSE structures, but use galvanized wire mesh as the geotextile 45 degree embankment slope along San Pedro Boulevard in San Rafael, CA Geotextile soil reinforcement allows almost unlimited latitude in designing earth support systems with minimal corridor disturbance and right-of-way impact MSEs also allow roads to be constructed in steep terrain with a minimal corridor of disturbance as compared to using conventional 2:1 cut and fill slopes • Geotextile grids can be combined with low strength soils to engender additional shear strength; greatly enhancing repair options when space is tight Geotextile tensile soil reinforcement can also be applied to landslide repairs, allowing selective reinforcement of limited zones, as sketch below left • Short strips, or “false layers” of geotextiles can be incorporated between reinforcement layers of mechanically stabilized embankments (MSE) to restrict slope raveling and erosion • Section through a MSE embankment with a 1:1 (45 degree) finish face inclination.
    [Show full text]
  • I/ General Description and Characterization of the NBS Entity
    Objects/shapes/ physical projects > On the ground > system for erosion control “vegetation engineering systems for slope erosion control” STRONG SLOPE REVEGETATION (Steeper than 2:1) I/ General description and characterization of the NBS entity I.1 Definition and different variants existing Definition • Stabilizing soils structure on steepened slopes through revegetation in order to minimize or prevent the erosion of soil by wind or rain and landslides, avoiding sedimentation problems Smart slope-vegetated-retaining-wall, Dakota. Furbish 2013. © United Themes. When the slope is really steeped, the most common slope stabilization and erosion prevention method is some kind of retaining slopes method joined with revegetation. The origin of unstable slopes can be natural because of the soil geotechnical properties, or as consequence of human activities that create new cutting slopes or embankments during construction works. When soil is disturbed at a construction site, or the natural vegetation cover is retired, the erosion rate may increase significantly. Proper planning and use of erosion control prevention and mitigation measures can reduce the impact of human-caused erosion. In order to stabilize steepened slopes, some kind of soil retention method is nevertheless needed; joining it with a well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion in unstable slopes steeper than 2H:1V. The retention method keeps the soil meanwhile vegetation protects soil surfaces from rain generated splash erosion and can help to slow runoff flows across a disturbed ground. 1 / 11 In addition, plant roots hold their soil in place, keeping it from washing away during rainstorms. Lastly, trees help to prevent high winds from blowing away top soil because the trees provide windbreaks, which can prevent high winds.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Supplement 14D--Geosynthetics in Stream Restoration
    Technical Geosynthetics in Stream Restoration Supplement 14D (210–VI–NEH, August 2007) Technical Supplement 14D Geosynthetics in Stream Restoration Part 654 National Engineering Handbook Issued August 2007 Cover photo: Inert or manmade materials can be used in restoration de- signs where immediate stability is required and can be used in concert with vegetation. Advisory Note Techniques and approaches contained in this handbook are not all-inclusive, nor universally applicable. Designing stream restorations requires appropriate training and experience, especially to identify conditions where various approaches, tools, and techniques are most applicable, as well as their limitations for design. Note also that prod- uct names are included only to show type and availability and do not constitute endorsement for their specific use. (210–VI–NEH, August 2007) Technical Geosynthetics in Stream Restoration Supplement 14D Contents Purpose TS14D–1 Introduction TS14D–1 Materials TS14D–1 Geotextile ....................................................................................................... TS14D–1 Geogrid ........................................................................................................... TS14D–1 Geonet ............................................................................................................ TS14D–2 Geocell ........................................................................................................... TS14D–2 Rolled erosion control products ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Use of GEOGRID for Strengthening and Reducing the Roadway Structural Sections
    NDOT Research Report Report No. 327-12-803 Use of GEOGRID for Strengthening and Reducing the Roadway Structural Sections January 2016 Nevada Department of Transportation 1263 South Stewart Street Carson City, NV 89712 Disclaimer This work was sponsored by the Nevada Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of Nevada at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. USE OF GEOGRID FOR STRENGTHENING AND REDUCING THE ROADWAY STRUCTURAL SECTIONS Final Report Submitted to Nevada Department of Transportation Nader Ghafoori, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Civil Engineering AND MohammadReza Sharbaf Graduate Research Assistant Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction University of Nevada Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 454015 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4015 Tel: (702) 895-2531 Fax: (702)895-3936 Email: [email protected] January 2016 ABSTRACT An experimental laboratory program to assess the effectiveness of biaxial and triaxial geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements to reduce roadway section was carried out. Six laboratory tests were conducted using a steel cylindrical mold with dimensions of 1.8 m (6 ft) in diameter and 2.1 m (7 ft) in height. The studied reinforced and unreinforced (without geogrid) sections consisted of a locally-obtained subgrade with a minimum thickness of 1.5 m (5 ft) and an asphaltic surface course of 7.6 cm (3 in).
    [Show full text]
  • Cellular Confinement Systems
    Cellular Confinement Systems EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUE Revegetation [1] Temperate Climates ✔ Short-Term [2] Non Vegetation ✔ Wet Tropics ✔ Long-Term [2] Weed Control Semi-Arid Zones ✔ Permanent ✔ [1] Vegetation, such as grasses, can be established within the cells. [2] Can be used for short-term erosion control, but is most commonly used as a permanent treatment. Symbol Photo 1 – Cellular confinement system Photo 2 – Cellular confinement system used to restrict gravel movement on a used to retain soil and assist in the permanent car park establishment of grass on a steep slope Key Principles 1. Critical design parameters are the size and depth of the cells, choice of cell wall texture (smooth or rough, solid or perforated), type of anchorage system (applicable to slopes and concave surfaces), and the choice of infill material. 2. It is critical to ensure the top of the cellular confinement system (CCS) is set flush with, or slightly below, the adjacent terrain to avoid stormwater run-on water being diverted along the edge of the matrix. Design Information The following design information applies to applications not within a drainage channel. For use as a channel/chute lining, refer to the separate fact sheet within the ‘Drainage Control’ section. Step 1 Determine the type of cell wall: smooth, textured, or perforated. Textured or perforated surfaces (Photo 4) are required when the honeycomb matrix is installed with a concave profile that may cause the matrix to lift from the ground. Perforated cell walls are required when it is necessary for water flow to pass laterally through the cell walls (Photos 5 & 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Stiffness and Strength Improvement of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pavement
    infrastructures Article Stiffness and Strength Improvement of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pavement Foundation Using Large-Scale Wheel Test Jason Wright 1, S. Sonny Kim 2,* and Bumjoo Kim 3 1 Aviation Engineer II, Pond and Company, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092, USA; [email protected] 2 Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 3 Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 2 March 2020; Accepted: 1 April 2020; Published: 3 April 2020 Abstract: Laboratory cyclic plate load tests are commonly used in the assessment of geosynthetic performance in pavement applications due to the repeatability of testing results and the smaller required testing areas than traditional Accelerated Pavement Testing facilities. While the objective of traditional plate load testing procedure is to closely replicate traffic conditions, the reality is that rolling wheel loads produce different stresses in pavement layers than traditional cyclic plate load tests. This two-fold study investigates the differences between the stress response of subgrade soil from a rolling wheel load (replicating rolling traffic conditions) and a unidirectional dynamic load (replicating traditional plate load test procedures) in order to obtain a more realistic stress response of pavement layers from rolling wheel traffic. Ultimately, results show that the testing specimens that experienced rolling wheel loading had an average of 17% higher pressure measurements in the top of the subgrade than vertically loaded (unidirectional dynamic load) specimens. The second segment of this study is used in conjunction with the first to analyze aggregate base material behavior when using a geosynthetic for reinforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance of Nonwoven Geotextiles on Soil Drainage and Filtration Nour-Eddine Sabiri, Adeline Caylet, Agnès Montillet, Laurence Le Coq, Yves Durkheim
    Performance of nonwoven geotextiles on soil drainage and filtration Nour-Eddine Sabiri, Adeline Caylet, Agnès Montillet, Laurence Le Coq, Yves Durkheim To cite this version: Nour-Eddine Sabiri, Adeline Caylet, Agnès Montillet, Laurence Le Coq, Yves Durkheim. Performance of nonwoven geotextiles on soil drainage and filtration. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Taylor & Francis, 2017, 10.1080/19648189.2017.1415982. hal-01741182 HAL Id: hal-01741182 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01741182 Submitted on 21 Aug 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Performance of nonwoven geotextiles on soil drainage and filtration Nour-Eddine Sabiria, Adeline Cayleta,b, Agnès Montilleta, Laurence Le Coqa and Yves Durkheimc auniversité de nantes, gEpEa, umr-CnrS 6144, nantes, france; buniversité de Bretagne Sud, frE CnrS 3744, irdl, pontivy, france; cafitEX, Champhol, france ABSTRACT The selection of a geotextile to prevent the soil suffusion in a civil engineering ARTICLE HISTORY work is a classical problem. The internal erosion is a key factor as the migration received 8 march 2017 of fine particles damages the integrity of the soil structure. This work deals accepted 6 december 2017 with the problem of using a draining system consisting of a layer of soil and a KEYWORDS geotextile sheet in order to prevent soil suffusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of "Soil" and "Mineral"
    OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 113 June 12, 1989 William O. Roller Division of Mineral Mining P.O. Box 4499 Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 TOPIC: DEFINITIONS OF SOIL AND MINERAL INQUIRY: A permit is required for an operator to extract minerals from the earth. Is clay which is excavated from a borrow pit and used for fill dirt in construction considered a "mineral", requiring a permit, or "dirt" which would not require a permit, for removal? Locate state laws which define "minerals", "soil", or "dirt". SEARCH RESULTS: Research was conducted using the state code files on LEXIS. At the time the research was performed, codes for 32 states were available. Summaries of the identified state code sections are listed in table format below. Excerpts from the identified sections and the list of states searched on LEXIS are included as appendices. Research was also conducted using the state and federal case law files on LEXIS. The decisions identified as a result of the research and the topics they discuss are listed below. Copies of the decisions are enclosed as appendices. STATUTES AND CODES FINDINGS 1. Many mining- or natural resource-related sections include "clay" in the definition of "mineral". In some cases, the definition of mineral is qualified by the phrase "in this Act". 2. Many mining and natural resource sections use the words "soil" and "earth" almost interchangeably; the word "dirt" is virtually never used. 3. When used in state codes, the word "dirt" usually means "foreign substance", "filth", or "stain" and appears in codes dealing with food, agricultural products and dry cleaning.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Retail Price List
    GRASS SEED FIREWOOD 2021 Retail Price List LB BAG Cord (4' x 4' x 8' - 128 Cubic Ft.) $374.99 50/50 (Full/Partial Sun) $4.89 $208.00 2/3 Cord (32" x 4' x 8') $269.95 50% Bluegrass, 50% Rye; Fast establishment with good mix of 1/3 Cord (16" x 4' x 8') $159.95 both types of seed for residential use. For full to partial sun Double Trunk Stack (16" x 4' x 4') $89.95 areas. Trunk Stack (16" x 4' x 2') $49.95 Great Lakes P&A (Sun/Shade Mix) $4.79 $204.00 Camping Bundle (16" x 2' x 2') $29.95 35% Rye, 30% Blue, 35% Fescue; Great all around performer with the ability to be planted in any area from shade to full sun BAGGED ORGANICS Moo-Nure 25 LB $3.49 8997 Columbia Rd, Olmsted Falls, OH 44138 Premium Athletic Mix (Sun) $5.29 $225.00 Compost/Manure 40 LB $4.99 Phone: 440-235-2358 Fax: 440-235-2359 70% Bluegrass, 30% Rye; Slowest to establish, but nicest Peat Moss 3.8 CF $19.99 email: [email protected] residential lawn seed. Full sun. Soil Magic PLUS 1.2 CF $8.95 web: www.mryardoh.com Shade Mix (Shade) $4.79 $204.00 Topsoil 40 LB $4.99 90% Fescue, 10% Bluegrass; good for light to heavy shade areas. YOU PICK UP OR WE DELIVER All prices listed are for pickup at our yard. LAWN/GARDEN CARE There is an additional charge for delivery which varies by 18-24-12 Starter Fertilizer 50LB Bag $29.95 city - see our delivery price list or call for pricing.
    [Show full text]