SS9402-SY 980121GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
Sewerllne Backfill
Bethel Road - Grapevine Creek to
Near Royal Lane
~" Coppell, Texas
Pub*on, Burk® & Thompson
Engineer'mg Consultants
January 21, 1998
10555 t, lewkirk Street
S u il e 530
Dallas, Texas 75220
912.831.1 1 ! 1
FAX 972.831.0800
The City of Coppell
255 Parkway Boulevard
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Attn:
Mr. Kenneth M. Griffirt, P.E.
Assistant City Manager
City Engineer
Re:
Geotechnical Consulting Services
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road - Grapevine Creek to Near Royal Lane
Coppell, Texas
PBT Project No.: 1345
Dear Ken:
Patton, Burke & Thompson (PBT) has completed a geotechnical engineering study for the above
referenced assignment and herewith submits three (3) copies of our report. This assignment was carried out
in general accordance with our verbal discussions and PBT's proposal (No. 97-379) dated November 25, 1997.
Our firm appreciates the opportunity to be of continued professional service to the City of Coppell. We
will be available, at your request, to discuss any questions which may arise concerning this report.
Respectfully submitted,
PATTON, BURKE & THOMPSON
Sri Dinakaran
Staff Engineer
Dist.: (3) addressee
134salt
Pa,*on, Burke d~ Thompson
Engineering ¢ottsdtrmts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PBT Job No. 1345
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1
2.0 AVAILABLE DATA ............................................................ 2
3.0 FIELD EXPLOKATION ......................................................... 3
4.0 LABORATOKY TESTING ....................................................... 4
5.0 GENEKAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................... 4
6.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................ ' ......... 5
7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 6
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 7
9.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................ 7
LIST OF FIGURES
BORING LOCATION PLAN .............................................. ~ . . . FIGURE 1
SECTION INDICATING PBT AND EWI SAMPLING .............................. FIGURE 2
LOGS OF BORINGS .................................................... FIGURES 3-12
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SHEET ............................................. FIGURE 13
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ............................................. FIGURE 14
SUMMARY OF PBT AND EWI SAMPLING ..................................... FIGURE 15
SUMMARY OF EWI PKOCTOK TEST RESULTS ................................ FIGUR~ 16
PLOT OF EWI AND PBT PROCTOK VALUES .................................. FIGURE 17
PLOTS OF DKY DENSITIES OF PBT AND EWl RESULTS ........................ FIGURE 18
PLOT OF DEPTH VERSUS WATER CONTENTS OF PBT AND EWI TEST RESULTS . . FIGURE 19
PLOTS OF PEKCENT COMPACTION OF PBT AND EWI TEST RESULTS ........... FIGURE 20
SPECIFIC SITE COMPARISON OF PBT AND EWI TEST RESULTS ................ FIGURE 21
Pa~on, Burke & Thompson
Engineering Consultants
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
SewerHne Backfill
Bethel Road - Grapevine Creek to Near Royal Lane
Coppell, Texas
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Patton, Burke & Thompson (PBT) has-completed its geotechnical investigation to evaluate trench baCkfill
conditions which may have contributed to the observed distresses for the subject asphaltic pavement, and
corresponding preliminary remediation recommendations. This report has been prepared and submitted in
general accordance with PBT's proposal No. 97-379, dated November 25, 1997.
The subject sanitary sewerline is along Bethel Road (approximately between StationS 2+00 through the end of
the alignment near Station 73+00), involving approximately 7,100 linear feet of 10-inch to 124neb PVC piping.
The general .alignment of the subject pipeline is beneath the eastbound (i.e., southside) lane of Bethel Road.
The construction, proceeding generally east to West, for the subject sanitary sewer was started in January 1996
and was completed in May or June 1996. The construction primarily involved open-cut trenching type
construction u 'tflizing a trenchbox. Furthermore, it has been reported that the trench was dug with a backhoe,
and generally no groundwater was encountered during construction. The trench was a minimum of 4-feet in
top width and all trench backfill was compacted with a self-propelled, sheep foot, vibratory compactor. The
depth of excavation varied along the alignment but generally was in the order of 10 to 15-feet.
A few additional site features and/or construction details are worthy of note as follows:
This roadway alignment is basically through the old, original City ofCoppell (i.e., roadway has been
there for a long time).
County crews milled-up the old asphalt pavement, section along the new sewerline alignment prior to
the trenching excavation activities.
New pipeline alignment crossed many old, existing service lines.
(gravel) material backfill in such areas.]
[Note: Also the possibility of granular
Patton, Burke d~Thompsoa
E~girMerimj Co~s~;Itants
Sewerline Backfill
COppell, Texas
Page 2
Details in immediate vicinity of pipe included a 6-inch "cushion" material beneath the pipe, a 12-inch
"rock" material zone over the pipe, and the initial soil backfill lift over the rock material was 2-1/2 to
3-foot in thickness.
Testing lab for checking compaction on trench backfill Was hired by the contractor and was on an "on-
call" basis (i.e., not full time inspection).
County came in after all sewerline construction and repaved entire width of Bethel Road.
High frequency of large trucks, 18-wheels (mainly at night offFreeport Parkway) and concrete trucks
use Bethel Road.
A TV-survey of line was made around a year ago, and no signs of any problems with the pipe itself.
Visual observations by PBT on November 24, 1997 indicated that the major pavement distress is settlement
and rutting along the eastbound lane, and these movements seemed to have occurred in both open roadway
sections and in the vicinity of various manholes. However, it appears in general that the frequency and number
of patched/repaired areas is relatively less west of Freeport Parkway.
2.0 AVAILABLE DATA
'Certain documents related to the sewer line design and construction have been provided for PBT's review
during the course of the study. These documents, in addition to discussions with the City, included the
following:
·
A set of plan (Drawing No. 16 to 29)' of Sanitary Sewer Improvements prepared by I-IDR
Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
Construction density test reports by Ellerbee-Walczak, Inc. (EWI) dated from January 16 to
May 28, 1996,
Sewerline Backfill
Coppell, Texas
Page 3
December 16, 1996.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
A total of nine (9) exploratory borings (I3-1 through B-9) was advanced,by PBT to depths of 8 to 12-feet alOng
the alignment of the subject Bethel Road sewerline to investigate bac ~kfill conditions at selected locations.
Boring locations were generally determined based on our field observation and the discussion with City
representative. In addition, one (1) boring (B-10) was drilled to a depth of 8-feet in the westbound lane of
Bethel School Road near it's intersection with Plantation Drive.
The final depth of each boring terminated a few feet above the top of the pipe, therefore it was dependent upon
the embedment depth of the sewer line. All boring sampling was supervised and logging performed by a PBT
Field Engineer. The location of the borings are shown graphically on Figure 1, the PBT boring locations and
EWI test locations are graphically illustrated in Figure 2, Summary Logs of Borings are included as Figures 3
through 12, and the Soil Classification Sheet for the logs is presented in Figure 13.
Where poss~le, relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained from the borings using a thin Walled, seamless
Shelby tube sampler pushed cOntinuously into the ground: Shelby tube samples were evaluated for basic
stiffness and/or strength in the field with a pocket penetrometer. Soil samples were also obtained in several test
borings, primarily in the more "sandy" soils, by driving a 24-inch long standard split-spoon sampler into the
subsurface materials using a 140-pound hammer free falling 30-inches, which is commonly referred to as a
Standard Penetration Te~t (SPT). The number of blows for each 6-inches of penetration was recorded and the
total number of blows required to drive the second and third 6-inch intervals constitutes the standard
penetration resistance in blows per foot, referred to as the N-value. Samples of the subsoils were visually
classified, carefully wrapped, sealed, marked and transported to PBT's laboratory. The boreholes were
backfilled with soil cuttings and patched with asphalt or concrete before leaving the site.
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Engineering Consultants
Sewerline Backfill
Coppell, Texas
Page 4
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory testing program was conducted on selected samples to establish the general geotechnical
engineering properties and to allow an estimate of the in-sim conditions of the encountered backfill materials.
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the following standard procedures:
I.I,aboratory Test
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soil
Moisture Content
Percent Finer than No. 200 sieve
Standard Compaction
Applicable Test Standard
ASTMD 4318
ASTM D 2216
ASTM D 1140
ASTM D 698
Results of the laboratory teSts, including moisture content, PI, percent finer than #200 sieve are presented on
the Logs of Borings, Figures 3 through 12. The PBT compaction curve for a composite sample of backfill
materials from the test borings are presented on Figure 14. Laboratory test results were used, in addition to
evaluating the degree of compaction of the backfill materials, to assist in the classification of the soils
encountered according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as outlined by ASTM D 2487.
5.0 GENERAL TRENCH BACKFILL CONDITIONS
All the test borings were made above and along the alinement of the sewer line. Trench backfill materials were
generally encountered. The description and properties of these backfill materials, based on the test borings and
laboratory tests, are as follows:
· In general, backfill materials can be described as light brown, brown and gray clay with sand and gravel.
These materials were encountered in Borings B-1 through B-7. However, brown and tan clayey to clean
sands were observed in Borings B-8 through B-10:
The backfill materials can be classified as low to highly plastic with liquid limits between 22 and 50,
plasticity indices between 8 and 33 With 24 to 71 percent fines (i.e., passing the No. 200 sieve).
Patton, Burke d~ Thompson
Engineering Consultants
SewerlLne Ba~ld~ll
Coppell, Texas
Page $
6.0 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The review and analysis of original site development, reports provided, recent PBT test borings: and laboratory
results and our site observations has revealed the following:
1.) The data from PBT's boring samples (herein referred to as "lab tests" and EWI's field density tests
(herein referred to as "field tests") were organized and summarized for comparison and is tabulated on Figure
15. This data is also presented on Figure 2 which illustrates an alignment subsurface profile where PBT borings
were made in relation tofield tests. Figure 2 indicates-that from around Sra. 0+00 to Sra. 15+00 only the
surface (i.e. subgrade) soils were tested. Furthermore, from around Sta. 15+00 to Sra. 30+00, the field tests
were conducted along an inclined surface at an average depth interval of 2-feet. [Note: This pattern is not that
uncommon, however, because when using a. trench box frequently the contractor will construct a sloping
backfill surface behind the trench box]. From around Sra. 30+00 to Sra. 50+00, the field tests were conducted
along a vertical plane at an average depth interval of 2-feet.
2) Figure 16 illustrates the different Proctor values used by EWI for the different materials encountered in
the field. The figure also illustrates the stations where these Proctors were used and alsO the date when they
were used. Figure 17 illustrates how EWI's various Proctors compare to the composite PBT Proctor. Figure
17 indicates the PBT Proctor compares favorably with EWI's Proctors A, B, C and F (i.e,, primarily "sandy
days,). EWI Proctors E and G were primarily for "clayey soils'" and EWI Proctor D was primarily for "sandy
soils".
3.) Figures lg and 19 illustrate a comparison of all the raw data from lab test results and field tests. Figure
18 illustrates a comparison of the dry densities, and the data indicates that the dry densities from both lab and
field tests vary between 97 and 117 pcf. [Note: Somewhat unusual the plot of field dry densities indicate a zone
from around 97 to 102 pcfwhere no data points were reported.] Figure 19 illustrates a comparison of the lab
and field water contents and this figure indicates that the water contents vary between 7 and 25 to 27 percent
in both cases. Figure 20 illustrates a comparison of the percent compaction with depth between lab and field
data. Nearly 50 percent of the samples from the PBT lab test results were less than 95 percent compaction.
[Note: In order to arrive at the percent compaction PBT used the EWI Proctor which best fit the'description
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Eaginee~ing Consultaats
Scwerline Backfill
Coppell, Texas
Page 6
of the soil as classified by PBT.]
4.) Figure 21 illustrates some site specific comparisons of lab and field test results. [Note: There were six
(6) specific areas where a PBT boring was in the same location as field tests.] A plot was made for the 6-
comparison areas versus the average percent compaction. This 'data illustrates that, on the average, 95 percent
compaction (or greater) was obtained in only 2 of the 6 specific comparison areas for PBT's lab data, but was
reported in all &areas by the field data.
5.) In addition to the nine (9) borings along Bethel Road, BOring B-10 was made on Bethel School Road.
We understand that a similar construction involving backfill materials over a sewer line was done at Bethel
School Road after the subject Bethel Road Project. Therefore, Boring B-t0 was made at Bethel School Road
for comparing the subsurface material with Borings B-1 through B-9. However, the sandy backfill materials
observed in Boring B-10 were only similar to that observed in Borings B-8 and B-9. This backfill material can
be described as a fill material consisting of sand with clay and silt. Due to the sandy nature of the backfill soils
at the selected B-10 location no Shelby tube samples were obtained. However, the standard penetration test
(SPT) blow counts for the material in Boring B-10 varied between 3 and 10 bpf, with 7 bpfbe'mg the average.
For the material in Boring B-9, the blow counts varied between 2 and 8 bpf, with 4 bpfbeing the average.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
1.) The data fi.om PBT boring and laboratory tests for the sandy clay backfill soils (i.e., the type of backfill
soils primarily encountered along the alignment) were compared at certain common locations where field data
was available and is summarized in Figure 21. Figure 21 indicates that at four (4) of the six (6) common
locations the average percent compaction for the lab tests was less than 95 percent.
2.) Based on the average N values, the data suggests that the sandy backfill soils in Boring B-10 (i.e. Bethel
School Road) have a density that is 15 to 20 percent higher than in similar sandy backfill soils in Boring B-9
(i.e Bethel Road). Furthermore, the level of compaction (i.e., percent compaction) for the sandy soils
encountered in both Borings B-9 and B-10 is estimated to be below 90 percent.
Pa*ton, Barke & Thompson
Sewerline Backfill
Coppell, Texas
Page 7
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The surest alternative to remedy the subject pavement distress would be to remove the entire depth of the
backfill and rePlace the same fill material with proper compaction along the total length (or at least as far west
as Freeport Parkway) of the alinement. However due to economical, practical or other reasons if this
alternative is deemed unsuitable then an alternate method, involving a greater risk of continuing pavement
movement, could be considered. Such an alternate method would be to remove a minimum of the top 3-feet
(across the width of the original trench and extending a minimum of 2-feet on either~side of the trench) of the
existing backfill material along the. entire alinement and re_~co_rnpa~to a minimum o~ofthe
ASTM
D 698 maximum dry density. This, in our opinion, would effectxvely bridge over the~remammg trench
backfill materials. It should be noted that if just the surface or shalloTM subgrade materials are removed and
replaced then this would not effectively bridge over the lower fill materials.
A second alternative to recompacting a minimum of the top 3-feet of existing fill would be to remove a
minimum of 18-inches of the existing fill, placing a layer ofgeogrid (Miragrid MX1 or equivalent) or a layer
of geotextile 0Vlh'afi 500X or equivalent)across the width of the trench, a minimum of 2-feet on either side,
along the entire alinement, and recompaCting the fill to a minimum of 100 percent ofASTM D 698 maximum
dry density.
Furthermore, if either of the outlined alternate procedures is carried out then the repair area would be relatively
stiffer than other portions of the pavement away from the sewer line. Therefore, a certain mount of subgrade
Strengthening (e.g. 8-inches of lime stabilized subgrade) should be considered for the full width of Bethel Road.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
All geotechnical investigations are limited in that the.findings, conclusions and recommendations are based upon
the information provided by others and the new data collected, specifically in the small.diameter test borings,
which depict subsurface conditions only at the particular location and time designated on the logs. Subsurface
conditions at other locations at the site may. differ from those observed at the boring locations. Should any
Patton,'Burke & Thompson
£ngineedng Consultants
Scwerline Backfill
Coppell, Texas
Page 8
conditions other than those described in this report become known, it is recommended that Patton, Burke &
Thompson be notified so that further investigation and supplemental recommendations, if requked, can be
provided.
This investigation was performed in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices. In the event
that any changes in the nature or design of the project are made, the conclusions and recommendations in this
report should not be considered valid until the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations
verified in writing bY Patton, Burke & Thompson.
Patton, Burke & Thompson
l, gi, eering Co,sultafts
EWI's PROCTORS
PBT MDD OMC SAMPLE DATE STATION (depth)
DESIGNATION (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION
A 116.7 11.4 light brown clayey SAND 1/16/96 0+25, 3+00,
1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7+00 (13
2/6/96 15+25 (1'), 15+50 (3'), 16+50 (4'), 17+50 (6'), 19+00 (8
B 116.7 14.8 light brown and light 3/6/96 43+00 (1', 3', 5')
;~ray sandy CLAY 3/14/96 36+00 (0'), 37+50 (0'), 39+00 (0'), 40+50 (03, 43+50 (0
49+50 (0'), 69+00 (1'. 3', 5', 7')
5/28/96 63+40 (2'), 63+50 (4'), 63+75 (6'), 64+00 (8')
C 116.3 13.6 brown sandy CLAY 1/25/96 8+00
2/6/96 15+75(5')
2/12/96 22+00 (1'), 22+25 (3'), 22+50 (5'), 22+80 (7'), 23+00 (8
2/20/96 27+00 (0'), 27+50 (3')
2/27/96 31+00 (10'), 31+05 (8'), 31+10 (6'), 31+15 (4'), 21+20
D 114.4 6.6 light brown and tan 1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7+00 (1')
SAND 1/25/96 8+00
1/30/96 12+50 (-), 15+00 (-)
E 104.1 20.2 light gray and brown 2/7/96 19+25(2'), 19+~50 (4'), 20+00 (6'), 20+50 (8'), 21+00 (1
CLAY 2/29/96 33+75 (1', 3', 5')
3/4/96 36+00 (2', 4'; 6')
3/12/96 58+50 (2', 4', 6', 8', 1
4/3/96 25+00 (2', 4'), 30+00 (2', 4')
5/17~96 43+50 (3'), 44+50 (5'), 45+50 (8')
5/23/96 58+20 (7')
F 111.5 16.6 dark brown sandy CLAY 2/22/96 29+00 (1'), 29+25 (33, 29+50 (4'), 29+75 (63,~30+00 (7
3~5/96 39+00 (1', 3', 5')
3/6/96 43+00 (1', 3', 5')
3/7/96 46+00 (2', 4', 6')
3/11/96 50+00 (2', 4', 6', 83, 53+00 (1', 3', 5', 73
3/14/96 34+560 (03, 45+00 (03, 46+50 (03, 48+00 (031 52+50 (
54+oo (03
5/23/96 58+'05 (2'), 58+12 (33, 58+17 (5'), 58+30 (9')
5/24/96 62+00 (1'), 62+15 (3'), 62+35 (7')
G 101.4 24.8 dark brown CLAY 3/13/96 63+00 (2', 4', 6', 83
3/15/96 73+00 (1', 3', 53
5/20/96 49+25 (23, 49+50 (4'). 49+75 (6'),' 50+00 (8')
5/21/96 53+17 (3', 5', 7')
5/24/96 62+30 (53
SUMMARY OF EWI PROCTORS
SeweHine Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Job No. 1345 Cor)pell~ Texas
Pa~ton, Burke & Thompson
Figure 16
PATTON, BURKE & THOMPSON
Engineering ~.onsult~nts
10555 Newkirk, Suite 530
Dallas, TX 75220
Phone No: (972) 831-1111
Fax No: (972) 831-0800
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: ~ FAX NO:. (~_~
TO:. ~~.,
COMPANY:
FROM:
# OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET~:
SUBJECT:
"
Original will be sent via:
Mall ~/~ Messenger
Overnight Courier
Will not be sent
02-04-1998 04:14PM FROM PATTON, BURKE & THOMPSON TO 972~043570 P.02
EWI's PRO, CTOR$
PBT MOD OMC SAMPLE DATE STATION (depth)
DESIGNATION (pcf) (%) D. ESCRIPTION. ,
A 116.7 11.4 light brown clayey SAND 1/16/96 0+25, 3+00,
1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7+00 (1')
2/6/96 15+25 (1"), 15+50 (3"), 16+50 (4'), 17+50 (6"), 19*00 (8
B 116.7 14.8 light brown and light 316198 43*00 (1', 3', 5')
gray sandy CLAY 3114/96 36+00 (0'), 37+50 (0"), 39+00 (0'), 40+50 (0'), 43*50 (0
49+50 (03, 69+00 (1'. 3', 5',
'5/28/96.63*40 (2'), 63+50 (43.63+75 (6"), 64+00 (83
C 116.3 13.6 brown sandy CLAY 1/25/96 8+00 (0')
2/6t96 15+75(5")
~2/12/96 22+00 (13, 22+25 (3'), 22+50 (5'), 22+80 (7'), 23+00 (8
2/20/96 27+00 (0'), 27+50 (3")
2/27/96 31+00 (103, 31-05 (8"), 31+10 (63, 31+15 (4'), 21+20 (
D 114.4 6.6 light brown and tan 1/23/96 6+75 (0'). 7+00 (1")
SAND 1/25/96 8+00 (03
1/30/96 ;12+50 (-), 15+00 (-)
E 104.1 20.2 light gray and brown 2~7/96 19+25(2'), 19+50 (4'), 20*00 (6"), 20+50 (8"), 21+00 (1
CLAY 2/29/96 33+75 (1', 3', 5')
3/4/96 !36+00 (2', 4', 6")
3/12/96 58+50 (2', 4', 6', 8', 10")
4/3/96 25+00 (2', 4'), 30+00 (2', 43
5/17/96 43+50 (3"), 44+50 (5"), 45+50 (89
5/23/96 58+20 (7')
F 111.5 16.6 dark brown sandy CLAY 2/22/96 29+00 (1"). 29+25 (3'), 29+50 (4'), 29+75 (6*), 30+00 (7
3~5~96 39+00 (1', 3', 5')
3/6/96 43+00 (1', 3', 5")
3/7/96 46+00 (2', 4', 63
3/11/96 50+00 (2', 4', 6', 8'), 53+00 (1', 3', 5', 7')
3/14/96 34+560 (07, 45+00 (0'), 46+50 (07, 48+00 (07, 52+50 (
54+00 (03
5/23/96 58+05 (2'), 58+12 (3"), 58+17 (53, 58+30 (9')
5/24/96 62+00 (1"), 62+15 (3"), 62*35 (7')
G 101.4 24.8 dark I~rown CLAY 3/13/96 63+00 (2', 4'. 6', 8")
3/15/96 73*00 (1', 3'. 59
5/20/9649,'25 (2"), 49+50 (4'), 49*75 (6"), 50*00 (8")
5/2t/{~ ~3+17 (3°. $', 7')
5/24196 62+$0 (5")
SUMMARY OF ,,L~,I
Sewerline Ba¢l~ill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Job No. 134~ , ,, Coppellr Texas
P~'ton, Burke & Thompson Figure t6
TOTAL P,02
EWI°s PROCTORS
PBT MDD OMC SAMPLE DATE STATION (depth)
DESIGNATION (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION ~
A 116.7 11.4 light brown clayey SAND 1/16/96 0+25, 3+00,
1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7+00 (1')
2/6/96 15+25 (1'), 15+50 (3'), 16+50 (4'), 17+50 (6'), 19+00 (8
B 116.7 14.8 light brown and light 3/6/96 43+00 (1', 3', 5')
gray sandy CLAY 3/14/96 36+00. (0'), 37+50 (0'), 39+00 (0'), 40+50 (0'), 43+50 (0
49+50 (0'), 69+00 (1'~ 3', 5', 7')
5/28/96 63+40 (2'), 63+50 (43, 63+75 (6'), 64*00 (8')
C 116.3 13.6 brown sandy CLAY 1/25/96 8+00 (0')
2/6/96 15+75(5')
2/12/96 22+00 (1'), 22+25 (3'), 22+50 (5'), 22+80 (7'), 23+00(8
2/20/96 27+00 (0'), 27+50 (3')
2/27/96 31+00 (10'), 31+05 (8'), 31+10 (6'), 31+15 (4')., 21+20 (
D ' 114.4 6.6 light brown and tan 1/23/96 6+75.(0'), 7+00 (1')
SAND 1/25/96 8+00 (0')
1/30/96 12+50 (-), 15+00 (-)
E 104.1 20.2 light gray and brown 2/7/96 19+25(2'), 19+50 (4'), 20+00 (6'), 20+50 (8'), 21+00 (1
i CLAY 2/29/96 33+75 (1', 3', 5')
314196 36+00 (2', 4', 6')
3/12/96 58+50 (2', 4', 6', 8', 10')
413196 25+00 (2', 4'), 30+00 (2', 4')
5/17/96 43+50 (33, 44+50 (5'), 45+50 (8')
5/23~96 58+20 (7')
* F 111.5 16.6 dark brown sandy CLAY 2/22/96 29+00 (13, 29+25 (3'), 29+50 (4'), 29+75 (6'), 30+00 (7
3/5/96 39+00 (1', 3', 5')
3/6/96 43+00 (1', 3', 53
3/7/96 46+00 (2', 4', 6')
3/11/96 50+00 (2', 4', 6', 8'), 53+00 (1', 3','5', 7')
3/14/96 34+560 (0'), 45+00'(0'), 46+50 (03, 48+00 (0'), 52+50 (
54+00 (0')
5/23/96 58+05 (2'), 58+12 (3'), 58+17 (5'), 58+30 (9')
5/24/96 62+00 (1'), 62+15 (3'), 62+35 (7')
G 101.4 24.8 dark brown CLAY 3/13/96 63+00 (2', 4',.6', 8')
3/15/96 73+00 (1', 3', 5')
5~20~96 49+25 (23, 49+50 (4'), 49+75 (6'), 50+00 (8')
5/21/96 53+17 (3', 5', 7')
5~24/96 62+30 (5')
sUMMARY OF EWI PROCTORS
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Job No. 1345 Coppell~' Texas ._
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure 16
EWI's PROCTORS
PBT MDD OMC SAMPLE DATE STATION (depth)
DESIGNATION (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION
A 116.7 11.4 light brown clayey SAND 1/16/96 0+25, 3+00,
1/23/96 6+75 (0~, 7+00 (1")
2/6/96 15+25 (1~, 15+50 (3'), 16+50 (4'), 17+50 (6'), 19+00 (8
B 116.7 14.8 light brown and light 3/6~96 43+00 (1', 3', 5")
gray sandy CLAY 3/14/96 36+00 (0~), 37+50 (0~, 39+00 (0'), 40+50 (0'), 43+50 (0
49+50 (0~, 69+00 (1'. 3', 5', 7~
5/28/96 63+40 (2"), 63+50 (4'), 63+75 (6~, 64+00 (8~
C 116.3 13.6 brown sandy CLAY 1/25/96 8+00 (0~
' 2/6/96 15+75 (5~
2/12/96 22+00 (1~, 22+25 (3~, 22+50 (5'), 22+80 (7'), 23+00 (8
2/20/96 27+00 (0"), 27+50 (3~
2/27/96 31+00 (10"), 31+05 (8~, 31+10 (6), 31+15 (4'), 21+20 (
D 114.4 6.6 light brown and tan 1/23/96 6+75 (0~, 7+00 (1~
SAND 1/25/96 8+00 (0~
1/30/96 12+50 (-), 15+00 (-)
E 104.1 20.2 'light gray and brown 2/7/96 19+25(2~, 19+50 (4~, 20+00 (6~, 20+50 (8~), 21+00 (1
CLAY 2/29/96 33+75 (1°, 3', 53
3/4/96 36+00 (2', 4', 6')
3/12/96 58+50 (2', 4',r 6', 8', 10~
4/3/96 25+00 (2', 4~, 30+00 (2', 4')
5/17/96 43+50 (3"), 44+50 (5~, 45+50 (8~
5/23~96 58+20 (7~
F 111.5 16.6 dark brown sandy CLAY 2/22/96 29+00 (1~, 29+25 (3"), 29+50 (4~; 29+75 (6'), 30+00 (7
3/5~96 39+00 (1', 3', 5~ ·
3/6196 43+00 (1', 3', 5~
3/7/96 46+00 (2', 4', 6~
3/11/96 50+00 (2', 4', 6', 8~, 53+00 (1', 3', 5', 7')
3/14/96 34+560 (0~, 45+00 (0~, 46+50(0~, 48+00 (0"), 52+50 (
54+o0 (0~
5~23/96 58+05 (2~, 58+12 (3~), 58+17 (5~, 58+30 (9')
5/24/96 62+00 (1"), 62+15 (3~,, 62+35 (7")
G 101.4 24.8 dark brown CLAY 3/13/96 63+00 (2', 4', 6', 8')
3/15/96 73+00 (1', 3', 5')
5/20/96 49+25 (2'), 49+50 (4'), 49+75 (6~, 50+00 (8')
5/21/96 53+17 (3', 5',. 7~
5~24~96 62+30 (5~
SUMMARY OF EWI PROCTORS '
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek L Royal Lane)
Job No. t345 , Coppellr Texas
Patton, Burke & ThOmpson
02-10-1998 05:05PM FROM PATTON, BURKE & THOMPSON TO 50435?0
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
PATTON, BURKE AND THOMPSON
TO:
ACTION
Jack Burke
INFO
DATE: February I0, 1998
FILE:
FROM: Ric~k Hnnnnerb~g
I
SUBJECT:i BETHEL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS , CITY OF COPPELL
!
3
Site Concrete gave me the following numbers for the potential improvements to the Bethel Road trench backfill:
· Retool:vat and disposal of the asphaltic concrete (1 O-feet wide): $7.40/sq. yd.
Lime Stabilization (1 O-feet wide and 8-inches deep)
Excax4ation and Backfill (8-feet x 3-feet)
ImpoSed common fill (i.e., any additional to materials excavated
from the trench) ~,s~o~.- ']& ,~4- Iv ~,~ ~ '
Barri{adingJTraffic Control
$3.30/sq. yd.
$3.40/sq. yd.
o
$7.00/cu. yd.
Varies by Requirements
Site Concrete ~1~o e~timated approximately 15-working days to complete 4,000 lineal feet of backfill. B~sed upon
Site Concrete, s estimated schedule, the order of magnitude of our f_ems four full-time o[sergqafion and testing would
S~mioI Engineering Technician - 1 $ days x 9 hfs/day x $3 S/hr $4,725
Proct0r/Classifieation Tests - 4 tests x $170/test 680
Repo/t Review - 15 days x $20/day 30~.
Total Estimated Fees
$5,705
qO000
TOTAL P. 02
CIVIL ENGINEERING/t~RIL 1998
READERS
WRITE
A QUESTION OF ACADEMICS
The forum essay by Scott Shewbridge
(CE February 1998) discussed some
difficulties in engineering education, claim-
lng that engineering educators are becom-
ing focused too narrowly on technical areas
and lack the broad background necessary
for engineering practice. As an educator for
30 years at City College of New York and as
civil engineering department chairman for
four years, I agree with Shewbridge's con-
cern. I am less certain, however, that the
proposed fix by college administrators will
work so easily. I believe that a major road-
block lies in the tenure and promotion
structure at all universities. Committees
that control personnel actions apply uni-
form standards across all disciplines
related to "quality" publications and funded
research, which are judged largely by sci-
ence/math type standards. Applied work is
not considered to be of high quality. The
practice-oriented faculty member is much
more difficult to promote than one who has
focused on a narrow technical area.
I believe that the engineering profession
must work with university administrators
to reverse this trend, but it will be a slow
and difficult process. Professional engi-
neers concerned about the preparation of
the students that they hire should become
active in university issues, encouraging the
staffing of engineering courses with prac-
tice-oriented professors and the develop-
ment of alternative tenure/promotion stan-
dards for engineering faculty that
recognize the value of practice-oriented
papers and research. Perhaps ~ET criteria
in these areas could be strengthened to
apply pressure for change at universities.
CHARLES MILLER
New York, N. Y.
lhave absolutely no complaints about my
education or its outcome for me in the
marketplace. One economic view is that a
university diploma may be viewed by stu-
dents as an investment for eventual resale
to employers. The university may be seen
as an economic revenue enterprise gener-
ating continued support for administrators
and faculty in order to conduct teaching
and research. In this economic model, the
university may pursue a near-term strat-
egy of educating students in a way that
maximizes the return from primarily gov-
ernmental funding sources but fails to
meet dynamic marketplace requirements,
as the economic penalty (fewer students,
less funding, fewer alumni donations)
does not fall on the university in the short
term. In the long term, universities realize
that they must orient to the marketplace to
produce employable graduates, and most
do. The successful outcome of the pursuit
SOFT SOILS? NO PROBLEM
WITH A SPECTRAI PAVEMENT SYSTEM!
Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc. sets the standard when it comes
to developing solutions for subgrade improvement. Proven in
thousands of projects worldwide, Spectra® Pavement Systems
utilize Tensar® geogrid to form a composite structure that confines
fill material and distributes loads over a wider area. This reduces
rutting, pumping, and shear failurc of the subgrade, which is
especially critical when working with soft softs.
Spectra Systems also provide improved structural performance
that reduces undercutting, imported fill, and the thickness of the
pavement system, thereby lowering your overall cost.
Give us a call at 1-800-836-7271 for a no-obligation analysis of your
pavement project, or visit our web site at www.tensarcorp.com for
more information.
TENSAR EARTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
THE (~OMPANY YOU C~AN BUILD ONTM
(Circle 20 Reader Service Coupon)
CIVIL ENGINEERING/APRIL 1998
of higher education depends on continual
adaptation to the needs of the market-
place. Engineering firms may need to
invest start-up time and money in new
graduates, placing more trust in their mas-
tery of basics and demonstrated abilities
to learn rather than their facility with cur-
rent software. This may be the key to
attracting new students to the profession,
who might otherwise conclude that engi-
neering is not a profession but a skilled
trade in which one continually seeks work
as a subcontractor.
Pm~R B. MF~P,m~E, ^.M.^~SCE
Albuquerque, N.M.
In response to the Forum essay "Practice
What You Preach" (CE November 1997),
as well as some subsequent discussions
both in these pages and at some Web chat
rooms, I would like to point out two observ~
tions, one based on my personal experience
as a professional engineer for over 20 years,
the other on a continued observation of alas-
sifted ads for university positions published
in Cr~L ENGINEERING and other magazines.
First off, I can say that I attribute my enjoy-
ment of civil engineering, and the satisfac-
tion of my successful career, to what my
father-in-law calls the Big E (experience).
I gained experience in the early 1970s
from my former professors at the Univer-
sity of Utah and later at CalTech. My subse-
quent professional experience was gained
under the leadership and mentoring of
many fine associates, all registered P.E.'s,
whom I thank for their time and effort.
Many of these teachers had years of practi-
cal experience, but not all of them had a
Ph,D.
My second observation is that I have not
seen a single advertisement in the classi-
fied ads for university positions that calls
for a current registration as a professional
engineer. In fact, what I observe is that our
university system requires a Ph.D. with
previous teaching experience, not practical
experience. I am not trying to slam the
Ph.D. programs of our educational system;
what I am trying to point out is that acade-
mia begets academia, and the circle of pass-
ing practical knowledge to our young engi-
neers has been broken. Until educational
institutions get in touch with the real word
of practical, applied engineering, we will
continue to chum out academic engineers
poorly equipped with the practical knowl-
edge necessary to contribute in today's fast-
paced engineering environment.
PdC}~d~ A~DEgrON, P.E.
Larkspur, Colo.
A MATTDI OF RESPECT
This letter is followed by a reply from Timo-
thy Waite, author of the cited article.
lam outraged by the virulent antiengineers
nature of"Domesticating Steel" (CE Janu-
ary 1998), although I do understand that the
author functions in the name of the cold-
formed steel sheet manufacturers and of the
steel manufacturers in general.
No wonder our status, salaries, available
jobs and respect constantly drifted to near
zero amounts. No wonder New York, and
probably other states, withdrew the prereq-
uisite of being a graduate engineer from
the requirements for taking the P.E. exami-
nations. No wonder graduate engineer
P.E.'s are replaced all over by practical
engineers, technical engineers, technicians
and mere clerks assisted by computer pro-
grams constantly "updated" to "design" in
"lieu of engineers."
RUBEN GALILI, P.E.
Brewster, N. Y.
As a licensed professional engineer in
New York State, I share Mr. Galili's
concern for the role of professional engi-
neers, their status and respect. It was not
my intention to diminish that role or their
respect.
The purpose of the article was to
describe the problems of cold-formed steel
in the residential market and the major role
engineers have in overcoming these prob-
lems. Only a handful of universities in the
country provide courses in cold-formed
steel design. These programs are at the
graduate level and concentrate on research
and theory rather than on practical applica-
tions. Cold-formed steel design is not part
of the undergraduate curriculum or the
NCEE Principles and Practice of Engineer-
ing examinations.
Consequently, builders have difficulty
finding engineers who are able to design
houses out of cold-formed steel. Prior to
the creation of the Prescriptive Method,
there was no consistency in the design of
steel-framed houses. No two engineers pro-
vided the same details. Except for special
conditions such as garage headers or floor
joists on upscale homes, home builders
have not been required to seek the services
of an engineer.
If cold-formed steel is to make any mar-
ket penetration, it must be on a level play-
ing field with lumber. That was the empha-
sis on the development of the Prescriptive
Method and why this publication had the
support of the professional engineers on
the advisory committee. Builders, archi-
tects, code officials and engineers will all
benefit from a standardized product with
uniform guidelines and be more likely to
use cold-formed steel in residential con-
struction.
By helping to provide consistent stan-
dards based on sound engineering princi-
ples, professional engineers have played a
vital role in the development of cold-formed
steel. With these standards in place, engi-
neers have helped to make sure that cold-
formed steel is used correctly in residential
applications. In this regard, professional
engineers have strengthened their
integrity, status and respect.
TmOTH~ J. WArr~, P.E., M.ASCE
Aiea, Hawaii
KEEPING THE PUBLIC INFGRMB
Too often, engineers assume that their
good efforts to provide for societal
needs are all that is necessary and should
be adequate to convince policy and deci-
sion makers and the general public that
their deeds are worthwhile. There are
many organizations and individuals, how-
ever, that have successfully blocked or
impeded projects that address important
societal needs because we have not met
their opposition with an equally convincing
position. This is especially true for water
resources developments, particularly dams.
If one would ask the general public for their
viewpoint of dams, the response would
most likely be negative because they have
not heard all sides of the issue.
Engineers need to take a more active
role and begin to enlighten the public on
the pros and cons of their areas of interest
so that opinions will be based on all the
facts and information, rather than the all
too often one-sided view that exists. This is
inot to say that all engineers are in this cate-
As the network of roadways in the
U.S., and the world matures, atten-
it ion to transportation spending is
shifting from new construction to reha-
bilitation, maintenance and repair.
Transportation officials are faced with
shrinking budgets and must utilize the
most efficient and cost-effective meth-
ods to extend the time between major
pavement rehabilitations.
One proven
method of accom-
plishing this goal, in
both rigid and flexi-
ble pavements, is
with nonwoven geo~
textile interlayer
systems (commonly
referred to as paving
fabrics) in conjunc-
tion with asphalt
concrete resurfac-
ing, or asphalt over-
lays. In fact, the use
of paving fabrics
can increase pave-
ment life up to 50%. ' .... ~q~
Although paving
fabric usage now
exceeds 120 million
sq yd annually in the
U. S., its application
is neither consistent
nor universal. In
certain regions,
paving fabrics are
used with every
asphalt overlay, while in others they
are seldom used.
This inconstancy is most likely due to
the general lack of documented perfor-
mance history, and lack of clear under-
standing as to the benefits of
incorporating paving fabric into exist-
ing pavement section evaluation and
design methodology.
Valero is a marketing engineer, and
Sorenson is the central regional sales
manager for geotextiles, with Synthet-
ic Industries, Chattanooga, Tenn.
ROADS & BRIDGES · MARCH 1998
How .e,~v~g fa,/g~s work
Paving fabrics enhance performance
through two mechanisms: stress relief
and waterproofing. By acting as a
stress relief layer between old and new
pavements, paving fabrics retard
reflective cracking in the asphalt over-
lay. The ability of nonwoven geotextile
fabric to stretch at lower stresses than
the surrounding pavement allows it to
dissipate stress generated by traffic
loads over the underlying cracks rather
than transferring it into the new over-
lay. Therefore, paving fabrics directly
improve the performance of the asphalt
overlay through stress relief.
Although stress relief is important,
the most commonly overlooked, bene-
fit of paving fabric is its waterproofing
ability. During the installation process,
paving fabric is impregnated with a
sealant, or tack coat forming a low-per-
meability, flexible membrane between
the old and new pavement.
The flexibility of the paving fabric is
key to its success in waterproofing. As
the surrounding, brittle pavement
deforms and cracks, the paving fabric
is able to stretch; therefore, maintain-
ing a competent, low-permeability bar-
rier to water.
The integrity and longevity of any
pavement is a direct function of the
subgrade soil's ability to support it.
Noted textbook
author Harry Cede-
gren indicates that
saturation of the
subgrade, for mere-
ly 10% of the time,
can reduce the life
expectancy of a
pavement by 50%.
Thus, it is evident
that the key to long
lasting pavement is
the control of water,
specifically that
which prevents sub-
grade saturation.
Two fundamental
: approaches to this
problem are avail-
able. Either, water
entering the system
must be quickly
drained away so the
subgrade does not
have time to
become saturated,
or water must be
prevented from entering the system in
the first place. Obviously, it is prefer-
able to incorporate both of these meth-
ods to control water; however,
free-drainage is not always practical,
especially as a repair method on exist-
ing pavements.
With sound engineering, a well-
drained pavement may be constructed
and maintained by using high-quality
aggregate base material in conjunction
with a separation layer, such as a geo-
textile, between the aggregate and sub-
grade. In addition, the system must have
[ISlICOP
Hancor offers a full line of corrugated polyethylene pipe,
which start at 4 in. and includes diameters up to 60 in. The larg-
er sizes, from 36 in. to 60 in., have been received, thanks to the
increased flexibility and cost savings specifiers can gain.
"On larger stormwater projects, engineers and contractors
had been forced to use a combined pipe system, using
polyethylene for smaller diameters and traditional pipe
materials for larger diameters," according to Bill Altermat,
Hancor's vice president of marketing.
Now larger systems can be comprised entirely of
polyethylene, which means even greater cost savings,
' ease of handling and hydraulic capacity. Another bene- fit that cities, counties and private engineers have real-
ized from large diameter pipe is that installation does not
require heavy equipment, as does concrete and corrugated
metal pipe.
Circle 924
centrated chemical that requires varying dilution rates. This
allows government agencies to employ more product at a
lesser cost than other soil stabilizers and sealants. Dilution
rates can be altered .to promote a more precise solution for all
types of soil requirements or conditions.
Circle 927
Synthetic Industries Inc.
Synthetic Industries offers its Pyramat, a three-dimen-
sional, engineered matrix that allows vegetation to
anchor on surfaces that would otherwise not sustain plant
growth. It is a permanent erosion and reinforcement
matrix, which can be used on steepened slopes; high-
flow drainage channels; landfill caps and slope struc-
tures; dam, dike and levee protection; and bank and
shoreline stabilization.
Circle 928
North American Been
North American Green's C350
erosion control turf reinforcement
mat works with vegetation to pro-
vide comparable erosion protec-
tion. With a patent pending
combination of coconut fiber and
high strength 3-D netting structure,
the product provides soil stabiliza-
tion as well as permanent reinforce-
ment for vegetation. It provides
channel protection under flows
with up to 8 lb per sq ft of shear
stress, on par with the FHWA's
recommendations for 24 riprap.
The product also can be installed
without heavy equipment.
Circle 925
Ppesto Products Co.
Presto's tendoned, large-cell
Geoweb celluar confinement sys-
tem was specified to protect a new
bridge's approach embankment.
The large-cell system stabilized
the slope and allowed trees and
shrubs to be planted within the
cells. The system provides solu-
tions for earth retention, channel
and slope protection, and load sup-
port needs.
Circle 926
Soils Control International
SCI offers its flagship product,
Top-Seal liquid soil sealant and
stabilizer, for controling the prob-
lems associated with dust pollu-
tion, soil-base deterioration, and
soil erosion. After proper applica-
tion, the product quickly cures into
a hardened membrane which traps
soil particles and loose aggregates
providing an excellent upper-level
base course. The product is a con-
ROADS & BRIDGES · MARCH 1998 49
~R
ffopding the ne w technologies
Using the newest technologies in construction equipment can improve your bottom line.
Smart financing makes them easily affordable.
This article has been developed in cooperation with Ken-
neth S. Pell, manager of leasing, Case Credit Corp.
54 ROADS & BRIDGES" MARCH 1998
The absolute lowest-cost way to buy something is to pay
cash for it. Sound familiar? You ve probably heard this
from your banker, your father or an instructor.
They probably proved their point by comparing cash to the
total you would pay in principal plus interest during the term
of a simple loan. The sum is higher, of course, when com-
pared to the cash transaction. In some cases, paying cash
may make sense, especially for typical consumer purchases
like furniture, appliances and cars.
But when it comes to acquiring equipment for your busi-
ness, paying cash may not be the most cost-effective alter-
native.
The reason is found in the value of money over time, espe-
cially the money you would need to pay cash or make a
down payment on an installment loan. This test--known in
financial circles as the net present value analysiS--is based
on the premise that you may be better off keeping a dollar in
your pocket today than spending it on equipment.
Consider buying a piece of equipment for $100,000. You
have three basic alternatives, paying cash, taking out an
installment loan or leasing.
Writing a check for the total amount would appear to be
the lowest-cost way to acquire the machine, especially when
you consider a total financing cost of $i 15,376 (including
down payment, principal and interest) or a maximum leas-
858
LUOO'UaaJfieu'~t~ IV ~R II~IA
uo~.lem, lddr ur 'posh lroa >loel puc o~m
-modmol luo!qtue 'Kl!So~od luom0Aed
pi° 'a.uqrj 8mArd oql uo 8u!puodop
olqe!~rA q~noqlI¥ 'uo!launj
-joo~d~oleax oql op!^o~d ol o.uqej oql jo
uo!lmmrs puc ;uomoArd pio oql
a positive cross slope and a method to
remove the water, such as edge drains.
However, many existing pavements
were not designed to be free-draining,
or have ceased to be free-draining, due
to subgrade fines migrating into and
clogging the aggregate base.
In these cases, a free-draining pave-
ment can not be achieved without cost-
ly reconstruction of the entire
pavement section. In addition, the pri-
mary source of water entering a pave-
ment system is infiltration from the
surface, even in
pavements that
show little sign of
distress. The Fed-
eral Highway
Administration
(FHWA) reports
that up to 50% of
the water falling
on an asphalt
pavement, and up
to 67% of water
falling on a con-
crete pavement,
can become infil-
tration. Worse
yet, in distressed
pavement these amounts can increase
by 100%.
If infiltrating water can not drain, the
subgrade saturation follows. Given this
information, it is logical that the goal
of any pavement maintenance or repair
procedure should be surface sealing or
waterproofing.
C#ooalng a paving fabric
Paving fabrics have proven to be most
beneficial when used in conjunction
with asphalt overlays at least 1.5 in.
thick, over pavement with competent
subgrade support.
They should not be used as quick-fix
remedies where pavement lacks ade-
quate subgrade support, as evidenced
by widespread rotting in flexible pave-
ments or large differential vertical
deflections in rigid pavements. In these
cases, it is too late to realize the maxi-
mum benefits of paving fabric, and the
entire pavement section will most like-
ly require reconstruction.
In addition, paving fabrics should not
be used expressly for the purpose of
controlling transverse cracking in flexi-
ble pavement. Thermal cracking occurs
as a result of temperature expansion and
contraction of the asphalt overlay mate-
rial. Paving fabrics can not change the
properties of the asphalt material.
Nonetheless, the waterproof'rog benefit
is still realized in these cases.
The low permeability membrane
formed by the paving fabric and tack coat
will maintain its integrity in the presence
of moderate thermal cracking.
A more formal approach to determine
whether paving fabric is appropriate is
available through the Industrial Fabrics
Association International (IFAI),
-- From mix design to field perfmma., ce...
RoadReader Plus (Model 34501.
Measures thin laver and full
depth asphalt, softs, and
concret9.
One gauge for every
compaction control application!
Troxler Gyratory Compactor (Model 4140-B1. Meets
FHWA/SuperpaveTM specifications. Tests long term
performance of asphalt mixes.
COMING SOON... the Model 4141 contractor version:
small, compact, & portable. 9,,,-
Asphalt Content Ignition
Furnace (Model 4155).
Test method developed
by NCAT. Measures
asphalt content by the
ignition method. The
fastest and cleanest
test in the industry.
Over 40 years service to construction industry
Call or fax us today for more informatio~
Troxler Electronic Laboratories, Inc.
,/i[ TROXLER
3008 Cornwallis Rd., PO Box 12057
Research Triangle I'm'k, NC 27709
Phone: (919) 549-8(;61 Fax: {919) 549-0761
Web: x~,~; t roxlerl abs.com
52 ROADS & BRIDGES ° MARCH 1998
Circle 789
F
I
G
U
R
E
S
'P~I dP1 uotuao
pDo~ iladdoD
(Cj0+9~'olS)~--8
(oo+6£'~s)~-e~
Z
'p~J
eU!llle8
"'""----.....~ ^ 18
§uoJlsuJJ¥
(o6+s t'o~s)z-a
pDo~ Ileddo3
(0~+0£'otS)Cj-8
(00+9<~'D~S)~--8
(g~'+6t'otS) t-8
'u9 IDAO~l
O0 +cji: 'els
00+0~: 'els
O0+g! 'els
O0+OT
O0+g 'ets
00+0 'e'lS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(.0[ =~-~-d ~ )
(.g q'ldap) 6
0
0
I I I I I J
O0+Og 'ets --
o0+gt 'ets
O0+Of, 'e'IS-
O0+Cj[:
O0+Og. 'elS-
o0+g~ 'ets
o o o
o
o
)
0 0 0
0
o
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 o 0 0
(.~T -q'tdap) g-8 I
I
0
(.0! =ti{dap)
- 0 0
I I I I I
C
0
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 (St.49 +25)*
CUENT: Cit~ of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197
GROUND EL~ATION: 509.5· JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): Solid Auger
~e GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
h'. ~ ~ ~ O~ encountered during drilling.
~ cc -- U tJ O~ ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS Splt Spoon
~ ~ .a ¢~ ~ e6 CT Cuffings TC THD Cone CS Calfornle Spoon
u: ~ ~~;:::'~: ~ o = = = ~ ~ GEOTECHNICALDESCRIPTION
4.' asphalt; 2' base material
· FILL - CLAY, with sand and gravel, stiff to very stiff, moist,
- S1 0.0-2.0 ST P=1.75 18 107 71 ,··~ darkbrown0 lightbrown and gray
· -brown and light brown 0.5' .to 4'
· ~
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=2.25 42 12 30 · ~
· ~ -~ray and light brown below 4'
·
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=2.0 18 49 ·
'S4 6.0-8.0 ST P=1.5 20 103 ,··e
Boring terminated at a depth of 8-feet
· Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUAM'I~ DESIGNATION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 3
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 (St.39 + 00)*
CLIENT: CiW of Coppell LOCATION: CoppelL Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197
GROUND ELEVATION: 505.5· JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): Solid Auger
~ · GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
h'. =k: ~ ~ ~m encountered· during drilling.
6 "=' ~ ~ ~ .q C ~ '~ i~ ~ SAMPLE TYPE
-- ~ ~--0 ~. uJ ,,.a 0 ~ e,,. ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS Split Spoon
~; ~ ~ .~.~o m" . ~ _ . ~ CT Cuttings TC THD COn. CS C..fomi. Spoon
~ ~< ,,=;, ~< ........ O GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
-- -- - ~-- / 4.5' asphalt; 4' base material
· FILL - CI.A¥, with sand, medium stiff to stiff, moist, dark
,*·" brown and brown
· ~ - light brown below :2'
·
82 2.04.0 $1 P=3.0 17 107 ,·· - with wood pieces at :2' to l'
~ · - wood pieces encountexed at ~' to 8'
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=I.0 · -
·
S4 6.0-8.0 ST 17 . ·
Boring terminated at a depth of 8-feet
· Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehola backfllled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE p~tched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
-- Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure -4
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 (St.38+05)*
CUENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: Cot·Test LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197
GROUND ELEVATION: 505· JOB NO..' 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILUNG METHOD(S).- So~l Auger
~ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
i~ ~ ~ ~ encountered during drilling.
,,, -- u~ ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ -~ O O t¢ ST Sherry Tube RC Rocl[ Core SS Split Spoon
~ ~ =~u ~ z ~: ~'*' = = ~ = ~ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
..... I 4' asphalt; 2 to 3' base materi~l
· FlU. - ~I_A¥, stiff to ve~ stiff, moist to ve~ moist, dark
S1 1.0-2.0 ST P=l.5 24 99 50 17 33 ,··~ brown and light brown
· * - with calcareous deposits
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=2.75 .··
. · - with scattered gravel below 4'
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=3.25 19 101 · *
- S4 6.0-8.0 ST P=2.75 20 103 · ~
·
Boring terminated at a depth of 8-feet
' Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
P. POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
-- Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure- 5
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 (St. 36 + 00)*
CLIENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppello Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97
GROUND ELEVATION: 503· JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): Sor. J Auger
;g GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
;g ;g ~ c~ encountered during dr~ling.
, Z m ~:Zm m~ m =: ~' ~ --~ O O-- rc ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS Spit Spoon
~' I ~ 2: -~~ Z ~ ~ u~ O CT Cuttings TC THD Cone CS Califomi, Spoon
~ ~ -, < ........ o _ ~ o GEOTECHNICAI. DESCRIPTION
.......... I 4' asphalt; 2' base material
~ · FILL - CLAY, with ~nd and smtt~ed gravel, ver~ stiff,
~ · moist, dark brown to light brown
·
S1 1.0-2.0 ST P=2.75 . ·
~ · - light brown, with c~lc~'~ous d~sits below 2'
·
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=3.5 18 107 · ·
· · - with scattered gravel below 4'
·
- 5 - 83 4.0-6.0 ST P=3.5 16 101 · ~
·" - gravelly below 6'
S4 6.0-8.0 ST P=3.0 18 ,·..
Boring terminated at a depth of 8-feet
· Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
N ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings end
FIELD T o THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt,
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
ROD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
-- Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure - 6
LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 (St. 30 + 30)*
CUENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILMNG CONTI:~CTOR: CoroTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197
GROUND ELE'VATION: 505* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(SI: Solid Auger
~ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
I~, ~ ,. ~ ~ ~_ encountered during drilling.
t Z Z ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ -~ O O Z n- ST Shelby Tube Re Rock Core SS Sp~t Spoon
m -- ~ ~: ~: ~ ,. Q -- m ~1 CT Cuttings TC THD Cone CS California Spoon
,~ < -, ,; ....... o ~ - ~ ~ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
~ / 8.5' asphalt
· FILt. - CLAY, medium stiff to stiff, light brown, brown
·
Sl 1.0-2.0 ST P=l.5 18' 103 39 13
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=I.0 19 ·
·
5 S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=0.75 23 100
S4 6.0-8.0 ST P=2.0 22 107 ~ ·
- 05 8.0-10.0 ST P=4.0 22 97
·
Borinfl terminated at a depth o[ 12-[ect
· Flavation and station valuea obtained {rom the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
-15--
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehola backfilled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
p. POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 7
LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 (St.25+27)*
CLIENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewedine Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRIU.ED: 12/11/~7
GROUND ELEVATION: 506.5· JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE I OF 1
FIELD DATA I.~BORATORY DATA DRILLING MIll'HOD(S): Solid Auger
~e ~ GROUNDWATER iNFORMATION: No groundwater
h', ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ encountered during drilling.
· -~ o 0 .,- ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS Spit Spoon
· '~ o O '= ;c - ,~ '~ CT Cuffings TC THD Cone CS Caifomla Spoon
3" asphalt
· FILL - CI-~Y, with ~nd0 ve~ stiff, d~ to slightly moist, light
· brown end dark brown
·
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=3.0 15 114 ·
· ,~.ND, silt/, fine grain, loose, moist, light brown and brown
P·
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST 9 '·
· · -with clay deposits
~ 7.0-8.15
$fi 8.15-'10.0
- 10 Boring terminat~:l et e dopth of lO-[~t
· Elevation ,nd station Yalu~$ obtained from the plan
propered by HDR ~ngineeringo Inc. dated May '10015.
N - STANDAR~ PENEI~IION TEST RESI$1ANCE ~EM.t~:lKS: Somhol~ backfill~d with sol cuttings and
FIELD T- THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUAU'fY DESIGNATION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 8
LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 (St. 15 + 90)*
CUENT: Ci~ of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILUNG CONTI~CTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12111/97
GROUND ~I.L~/ATION: 497.5· JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): SorKI Auger
~g GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
~ ~ ~ ~ ~encountered during drilling.
IT, ~uZ - m ~: ~: _~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~m ~ O o =: ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS Split Spoon
· '~ 3: =.'~ O.~ -~ O m :~O" =c -- g C~ ~ ~ ~ g ~6.~ CT Cuttings TC THD Cone CS Califomla Spoon
~ ~ ~, ~ ........ o ~ o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
~ I 6' asphalt
· FILL - CLAY, ~andy, with gravel, medium stiff to ve~ stiff,
· moist, light brown and gray
S1 0.5-2.0 ST P=l.5 !16 107 22 13 9 50 , ·
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=I.0 18 109
· , -with ferrous stains below 4'
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=3.0 ·
S4 6.0-8.0 ST P=4.0 15 108
Boring terminated at a depth of 8-feet
* Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
--10-
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
p - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
-- Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure- 9
LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 (St. 11 + 00)*
CMENT: Ci~ of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197
GROUND ELEVATION: 501.4· JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE I OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILUNG METHOD(S}: Solid Auger
at GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
IT ~ ;~ ~ ~= fenc°untered during drying.
. ~ ~ ~ - ~
~ ~u ~ tc ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS Split Spoon
~ lu 2: -- uJ~ -- ~ e) ~ ~ -- ¢~ U) ; r~ ~ =3 e6 ..I CI' Cuttings TC THD cone CS California Spoo.
"' < ~ ~ z~-~'==° = ~ ,° GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
I 5' asphalt; 2' base material
~, * FILt. - $~NDo ciaye¥, loose, moist, brown and light brown
S1 1.0-2.0 ST P=I.0 12 · ·
·
S2 2.0-4.0 ST 12 26 e·~
~· -with gravel below 4'
- ~ - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=I.0 23 15 8 ··
·
· ·
- S4 6.0-8.0 ST 11 · ·
S5 8.0-10.0 ST 7 ··~
- 10 Boring Terminated at a depth of lO-feet
· Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
-15-
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
ROD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 10
LOG OF BORING NO. B-9 (St.8 + 50)*
CUENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewedine Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILI..~D: 12/11/97
GROUND ELEVATION: 496* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE I OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(SI.' Solid Auger
· GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
~ ;~ ~ ~= jenc°untered during drliling.
~ ec ~m ~ -- ~ ST She~y Tu~ RC R~k ~m SS Spat Sp~n
' ~ = ~ O 0 ~ = ~ ~ = = ~ ~ ~ ~ CT Cuttings TC ~D ~ne CS CaEfomla Sp~n
........ o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
~--- I 5' asphalt
· FILL - SAND, c~yey, v~ ~ose to ~ose, moist, brown and
· liflht brown
S2 2.0-3.5 SS N=2 15 ~ ~
S3 4.0-5.5 SS N=2 17 ~
Borin~ terminated at a depth o~
' Elevation and ~tation value~ ob~ined from tho
prepared b~ HDR finflineerinfl, Inc. dated Ma~
- ~0-
-I$-
N - STANDARD PENET~TION TEST RESISTANCE REM~KS: Borehole backfilled w~h soil cuttings ~d
FIELD T- THD ~NE PENET~TION RESISTANCE
P - ~CKET PENET~TION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RE.VERY
ROD - RO~K OUALI~ DE$1ONATION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 11
LOG OF BORING NO. B-10 (St.27 + 00)
CEENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texae
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILMNG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Concrete DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97
GROUND EL~ATION: NA JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S)= Solid Auger
~ · GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
IT, ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ encountered during drilFmg.
· -- ~: u~ "' 0 ~ ,,,' ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS S~it Spoon
I~, ~ = ~ o o ~_-' .. a o ~ ~ ~ ~ CT Cumng. TC THO Con. CS Co,foml.
z~-,, ,,'"' = =. [ o GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
~'.2~ 7' con~-ete
~ * RLL - $~ND, clayey to ~il~o ver~ Iooso to Ioo~e, moist,
~ · reddish brown to light brown and brown
S1 1.0-2.5 SS N=3 15 24 ~
S2 2.5-4.0 SS N=9 15 27 12 15
S3 4.0-5.5 SS N=IO 17 44
·
S4 5.5-7.0 SS N=4 15 .·.
S5 7.0-8.5 SS N=7 17 ,',
10 Boring terminated at a depth of 10 feet
· This boring located at Bethel School Drive.
N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
FIELD T- THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE
p - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with concrete.
TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY
RQD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 12
- UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
'1 SYMBOLS TYPICAL
MAJOR DIVISIONS I GRAPH I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS
. 0. 0 ~, ~). WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-
GRAVEL ~ ~ ~:~ GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
AND CLEAN IO, o, o. <>J FINES
GRAVELS
GRAVELLY
POORLY~:~RADED
GRAVELS,
GRAVEL
SAND
MIXTURES,
LITTLE
OR
NO
SOILS
COARSE ~$. e.o ~, e,~ FINES
GRAINED - · ·
MORE THAN 50% GM SILT MIXTURES
SOILS
OF COARSE ,
FRACTION GRAVELS I;~;1~.
RETAINED ON NO. WITH FINES ~_~ CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
4 SIEVE GC CLAY MIXTURES
......... WELL~:~RADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
MORE THAN 50% SAND ':':';';':':':';'; SW SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
OF MATERIAL IS AND ,,,,:,-,-,-,,,-,-,
LARGER THAN NO. CLEAN SANDS ..... ~.~..-~..-~.~..
200 SIEVE SIZE SANDY -.-:;-~"--~-:;--,~ ~ POORLY~:~RADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SOILS ~-'..¥~:.-'.:'.~.:~..-:~.:'-..'.. SP SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES
MORE THAN 50% : SM MIXTURES
OF COARSE
FRACTION SANDS WITH
PASSING ON NO. 4 ..~////~ CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
S~EVE FINES SC MIXTURES
FINE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT ~y,,~/,~ INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM
AND LESS THAN CE Pt. ASTIClTY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY
GRAINED
SOILS CLAYS 50 c~Ys, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY
OL CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
MORE THAN 50% M H DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
OF MATERIAL IS SILTY SOILS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT ~'/////~ INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
S~ZE CLAYS GREATER THAN CH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
5O
.... ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT
HIGH
ORGANIC
CONTENTS
ASPHALT
FILL
LIMESTONE
IZ '~' ,~t SHALE
SANDSTONE
..'~:.~.: ~..'
.... I'~ ';~'' ;;~' :~' ;~! CONCRETE
Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure 13
t40
t35
~30
125
t20
115
I$ ---.-'
~
tt0
105
t~ 95
Patton, Burke & Thompson
10555 Newkirk Street
Suite 530
Dallas, Texas 75220
CURVE NUMBER C -1
MAXIMUM DRY
OPTIMUM MOISTU~
(~.~ ~DRY WEIGHT
o ~ ~ol Il ~
MOISTURE CONTENT% ~, ~ ~ ~
Sample Description Comp0site Sample
B-1 to B-7 (0-6')
Looation
20 25 30 35
Compaction Test Procedure ASTH D 698
LIQUID LIMIT %
PLASTICITY INDEX .%
GRAVEL .%
SAND %
SILT AND CLAY %
PBT JOB 1345
CompactiOn
Test Results
0+25 1 (0.) ,
3+00 1 (0')
6+75 1(0.)
7+00 1 (1.)
7+25 1(2')
7+50 1 (2.)
8+00 1
8+50 B-9, 4 (0 - 7')
9+00 - I (0.)
11+00 B-8, 5 (0 - 10') _
11+50 - - 1 (6')
11+90
12+50 1 (-)
15+00 I (-)
15+50 1 (3')
15+75 1 (5')
15+90 B-7, 4 (0 - 83 -
16+50 I (4')
17+50 1 (6.) f .
19+00 I (83
19+25 I (2.)
19+50 I (4')
20+00 - 1 (6.)
20+50 - 1 (8')
21+00 - 1 (10.)
22+00 - I (13
22+25 I (3')
22+50 1 (5')
22+80 1 (7.)
23+00 1 (8')
25+00
25+27 B-6, 5 (0 - 1
27+00 1
27+50 1 (33
29+00 1 (1')
29+25 I (3.)
29+50 I (4.)
29+75 I (6')
30+00 3 (2', 4', 7')
30+30 B-5, 6 (0 - 12.)
31+00 - 1 (10.)
31+05 - I (8.)
31+1o - I (63
31+15 - 1 (4.)
31+20 1 (2')
33+75 3 (1', 3', 5')
34+50 1 (0')*
36+OO B-4, 4 (0 - 8') 4 (0'*, 2', 4', 6')
37+50 1 (0')*
38+05 B-3, 4 (0 - 8') -
39+0O B-2, 4 (0 - 8') 4 (0',* 1', 3', 5')
40+50 1
43+00 3 (1', 3', 5')
* - Subcjrade tests only ( not specifically for the backfill)
Summary of Samples
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Job No. 1345 Coppell, Texas
Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure 15
43+50 2 (0'*, 3')
44+50 1 (5')
45+00 _-- 1 (0')*
45+50 1 (8')
46+00 4 (0'*, 2', 4', 6')
46+50 1 (0')
48+00 I (0')*
49+25 B-l, 4 (0 - 8') 1 (2')
49+50 2 (0'*, 4')
49+75 1 (6')
50+00 4 (2', 4', 6', 8')
51+00 1 (0')*
52+50 - 1 (O')*
53+00 - 4 (1', 3', 5', 7')
53+17 - 3 (3', 5', 7')
54+00 - 1 (0')*
58+05 - I (2')
58+12 - 1 (3')
58+17 - 1 (5')
58+20 - I (7)
58+3O - 1 (9')
58+50 - 5 (2', 4', 6', 8', 10')
62+00 - 1 (13
62+15 - 1 (3')
62+30 - 1 (5')
62+35 - I (7)
63+00 - 4 (2', 4', 6', 8')
63+40 - 1 (2')
63+50 - I (4')
63+75 I (6')
64+00 1 (8)
69+00 4 (1', 3', 5', 7')
73+00 3 (1'~ 3'~ 5')
* - Subgrade tests only ( not specifically for the backfill)
Job No. 1345
Summary of Samples
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 15
Patton, Burke & Thompson
EWI's PROCTORS
PBT MDD OMC SAMPLE DATE STATION (depth)
DESIGNATION (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION
A 116.7 11.4 light brown clayey SAND 1/16/96 0+25, 3+00,
~ 1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7+00 (1')
; 2/6/96 '15+25 (1'), 15+50 (3'), 16+50 (4'), 17+50 (6'), 19+00 (8
B 116.7 14.8 light brown and light ~=~?-~$/6/96 43+00 (1', 3', 5')
gray sandy CLAY / i 3/14196 36+00 (0'), 37+.50 (0'), 39+00 (0'), 40+50 (0'), 43+50 (0
' ~( i 49+50 (O'), 69+00 (1'. 3', 5', 7')
, 4/3/96 25+00 (2', 4'), 30+00 (2', 4')
· . 5/28/96 63+40 (2'), 63+50 (4'), 63+75 (6'), 64+00 (8')
C 116.3 13.6 brown sandy CLAYI , ! 1125/96 8+00 (0').
! ~ 2/6/96 15+75(5')
iI 2/12/96 22+00 (1'), 22+25 (3'), 2~+50 (5'), 22+80 (7'), 23+00 (S
I 2/20196 27+00 (0'), 27+50 (3')
i ~ 2/27/96 31+00 1~,.!.~'), 31+05 (8'), 31+1.~.0 (6'), 31+15 (4'), 21+20
D ~! 6.6 light brown and tan ~- '1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7+00 (13
............. ~'-;~"~ SAND [ 1/25/96 8+00
! 1/30/96 12+50 (-), 15+00 (-)
E '104.1 20.2 light gray and brow~ 2/7196 19+25(2'), 19+50 (4'), 20+00 (6'), 20+50 (8'), 21+00 (1
..... ~.~ CLAY [ 2/29/96 33+75 (1', 3', 5')
. 3/4/96 36+00 (2', 4', 6')
13112/96 58+50 (2', 4', 6', 8', 10') ~-~
4/3/96 25+0 (2', 4'), 30+00 (2',
i 5~17196 43+50 (3'), 44+50 (5'), 45+50 (8')
1 5~23/96 58+20 (7')
F 111.5 16.6 dark brown sandy C Y 2/22/96 29+00 (1'), 29+25 (3'), 29+50 (4'), 29+75 (6'), 30+00~7
........ ~__ 3/5/96 39+00 (1', 3', 5')
316/96 43+00 (1', 3', 5')
3/7/96 46+00 (2', 4', 6')
3/11/96 50+00 (2', 4', 6', 8'), 53+00 (1', 3', 5', 7')
3/14/96 34+560 (0'), 45+00 (0'), 46+50 (0'), 48+00 (0'), 52+50
54+00
5/23/96 58+05 (2'), 58+12 (3'), 58+17 (5'), 58+30 (9')
5/24/96 62+00 (1'), 62+15 (3'), 62+35 (7')
G 101.4 24.8 dark brown CLAY 3/13/96 63+00 (2', 4', 6', 8')
3/15/96 73+00 (1', 3', 5')
5/20/§6 4§+25 (2~, 4g+50 (4~. 4§+75 (6~, 50+00 (8~
5/21/96 53+1~7 (3', 5', 7')
5/24/96 62+30 (5~
SUMMARY OF EWI PROCTORS
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Job No. 1345 Coppell~ Texas
Patton, Burke & Thompson
g[
120
L,, 110
105
100
0
i I
I I I I I I I
5 10 15 20 25 30
Optimum Water Content (%)
I-a r~B ~'C v D e E oF ~,g ~PeTI
NOTE:
D - primarily "sand"
A, B, C, F AND PBT - primarily "sandy clays"
E and G - primarily "clays"
Job No. 1345
Plot of EWI and PBT's Proctor Values
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 17
-- Patton, Burke & Thompson
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
90
I~
95 100 105 110 115 120
D~ Density (pc0
J m B-1 [] B-2 · B-3 v B-4 e B-5 o B-6 A B-7J
a.) PBT test results
0
-2
-8
-10
I I I I I
................................ l--l--I .................... I-I ............ I .................................
I
95 ' 115
100 105 110 120
Dry Density (pcf)
b.) EWI test results
Job No. 1345
Depth versus Dry Density
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 18
Patton, Burke & Thompson
0
~ ........................................................ ~ ..........................................................................
-12 m I [ I ' I t I m m '
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water Content (%)
m B-1 t= B-2 · B-3 '~ B-4 e B-5 o B.-6 ~ B-7 = B-8 + B-9 ]
a.) PBT test results
~ '6 ............ .o .............................. 04,---*--4~- ............ oo-..o- ......... ~, ..........................................
5 10 15 20 25
EWI's Water Content (%)
30 35
b.) EWI test results
Job No. 1345
Depth versus Water Content
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 19
Patton, Burke & Thompson
A
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
85
· ~ o m o
0
I I I s I
90 95 100 105
Percent Compaction (%)
Im B-1 o B-2 · B-3 v B-4 o B-5 o B-6 ~ B-7I
a.) PBT test results, using EWI's Proctor values
A
-2
-6
-8
-10
90 95 100
EWI's Percent Compaction (%)
105
b.) EWI test results
Job No. 1345
Depth versus Percent Compaction
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 20
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Specific Site Comparison of PBT and EWI test results
~ PBT
Comparison Station depth water density % proctor average
Area (feet) (%) (pct) (%) Proctor
15+90 I 16 107 91.7
(B-7) 3 18 109 93.4
6 15 108 92.5
25+27 I 15 115 99
(B-6) 3 15 t14 98
I~1 ~" 30+30 ~1 18 103 92
(B-5)(...5 23 lO0 98~
i 22 107 96
~-- 22 97 87
19 110 98.7
IV ~ 36+00 2 18 107 103
(B-4) 4 16 101 97
V ~ 39+00 1 21 104 93
(B-2) 3 17 107 96
VI ~-'~ 49+25 1 18 107 96
' (B-l) 7 20 103 92.4
Station
depth water density % proctor average
{feet) (~) (pct) {%) *Proctor
I 11.9 114.6 98.2
3 13.1 112.8 96.7 97.3
5 15.1 112.9 97.1
1 15.1 114.2 98.2 97.8
3 15.3 113.2 97.3
I 16.8 107.8 98.7
5 17.6 108.5 97.3
7 17.3 106.9 95.9 96.7
9 18.1 107.8 98.7
11 17.9 107.8 96.7
2 22 100.8 98.8 97.3
4 21.5 t01.9 97.9
I 16.5 108.2 97.1 97.7
3 17.7 109.5 98 .2
I 17 108.2 97 96.4
7 18 t06.8 98.8
15+00 to 15+75
92.5
98.5 27+00 to 27+50
29+00 to 30+00
92.7
100 36+00
94.5 39+00
94.2 50+00
110
100 ....................................................................... " ..................................................
~ o o
0 0 0
90 ............................................................. : ...............................................................
80 i I I I I i
i Ii Iii IV V VI
Comparison Area
· 1' PBTo EWII
Site Comparison Areas
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Greek to Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 21