The URL can be used to link to this page

MA1001-SY100407GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION DENTON TAP ROAD & SANDY LAKE ROAD COPPELL, TEXAS AGG REPORT NO. E10 -0308 APRIL 7, 2010 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF COPPELL PRESENTED BY: ALLIW'KE GROUP Geotechnical Engineering - Environmental Consulting - Construction Materials Engineering Testing 3228 Halifax Street Suite A Dallas, TX 75247 Ph. 972.444.8889 FX. 972.444.8893 ALLIAI`ICE G GEOTECHI'IICAL GROUr April 7, 2010 Mr. George Marshall, P.E. City of Coppell 255 Parkway Blvd. Coppell, Texas 75019 Phone: (972) 304 -3562 Email: gmarshall(cr- coppelltx.gov • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING • CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND TESTING Re: Geotechnical Investigation Pavement Reconstruction Intersection of Denton Tap Road & Sandy Lake Road Coppell, Texas AGG Report No. E10 -0308 Dear Mr. Marshall: Please find enclosed our report summarizing the results of the geotechnical investigation performed at the above referenced project. We trust the recommendations derived from this investigation will provide you with the information necessary to complete your proposed project successfully. For your future construction materials testing and related quality control requirements, it is recommended that the work be performed by Alliance Geotechnical Group, Inc. in order to maintain continuity of inspection and testing services for the project under the direction of the geotechnical project engineer. We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our professional services. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. pTECI� r'�•• i Michael , . Roland, P. MICHAEL DAINE Principal ,a7, 9604; I: w� ? D.? Mark J. Farrow, P.E. r Senior Principal .1 MEMBER 3228 Halifax Street • Suite A • Dallas, Texas 75247 ® Tel: 972- 444 -8889 • Fax: 972- 444 -8893 • www.aggengr.com�� FIGURES PLANOF BORINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 LOGSOF BORINGS --- ------ -- -------------------------- _---_------------------------------------ - - - - - & 3 LEGEND - KEY TO LOG TERMS & SYMBOLS -------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4 SWELLTEST RESULTS - -------------- -- ------ - ---- ------ ------ -- ---------- ____-- _---------------------- 5 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULS --------- -- --- ----------------------- -------------- -- __ --- _ --- - 6 LIMESERIES RESULS ------------------ - ----- -- -------- -- ---------------- - ------- -- ------------ ---------- 7 ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP E10 -0308 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ ..............................1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................. ..............................1 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................ ..............................1 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................. ..............................1 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................... ............................... 2 4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................. ............................... 2 4.1 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS ....................................... ..............................2 4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................ ..............................2 4.3 SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................. ..............................3 4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .................................... ..............................3 5.0 ANALYSIS AND SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ............................... 3 5.1 SOIL MOVEMENTS ........................................................ ..............................3 5.2 PROOFROLLING AND FILL PLACEMENT .................... ..............................4 5.3 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE .................................. ..............................4 5.4 STABILIZATION WITH HYDRATED LIME ...................... ..............................5 5.5 RECOMPACTED PAVEMENT SUBGRADE ................... ..............................6 6.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ... ...................................... ............................... 7 6.1 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ..............................7 6.2 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ................................... ..............................9 7.0 FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION TESTING ......... ............................... 9 8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................. ..............................9 FIGURES PLANOF BORINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 LOGSOF BORINGS --- ------ -- -------------------------- _---_------------------------------------ - - - - - & 3 LEGEND - KEY TO LOG TERMS & SYMBOLS -------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4 SWELLTEST RESULTS - -------------- -- ------ - ---- ------ ------ -- ---------- ____-- _---------------------- 5 SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULS --------- -- --- ----------------------- -------------- -- __ --- _ --- - 6 LIMESERIES RESULS ------------------ - ----- -- -------- -- ---------------- - ------- -- ------------ ---------- 7 ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP E10 -0308 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION INTERSECTION OF DENTON TAP ROAD & SANDY LAKE ROAD COPPELL, TEXAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of replacing the existing intersection of Denton Tap Road & Sandy Lake Road in Coppell, Texas. We understand that this existing pavement section consists of pavers over 8 inches of concrete. We further understand that the existing pavers / concrete will be removed and replaced with full depth concrete pavement. We understand that this street will be reconstructed to the same edge to edge dimensions and at the same pavement grades and that widening will not be performed. 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purposes of this geotechnical investigation were to: 1) explore the subsurface conditions at the site, 2) provide boring logs that present subsurface conditions encountered including water level observations and laboratory test results, 3) provide pavement subgrade stabilization recommendations, and 5) provide concrete pavement recommendations. This report was prepared in general accordance with our proposal number P10 -0309E dated March 22, 2010. 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation consisted of drilling two (2) pavement borings to depths of 10 feet. The test borings were drilled through the existing pavement. A truck- mounted driNing rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. The borings were located at the approximate locations shown on the Plans of Borings (Figure 1). Undisturbed samples of the soils were obtained at Intermittent Intervals with standard, thin - waked, seamless tube samplers. These samples were extruded in the field, logged, sealed, and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in -situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. ALLIANCE trGEOTECHNICAL GROUP E10-0308 PAGE 1 The results of the boring program are presented on the Logs of Borings, Figures 2 and 3. A key to the descriptive terms and symbols used on the logs is presented on Figure 4. 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the soil to aid in classification of the soli materials. These tests included Atterberg limits tests, percent passing #200 sieve, moisture content tests and dry unit weight determinations. Hand penetrometer tests were performed on the soil samples to provide indications of the swell potential and the foundation bearing properties of the subsurface strata. The results of these tests are presented on the Logs of Borings (Figures 2 and 3). To provide additional information about the swell characterises of these soils (at their in -situ moisture conditions), absorption swell tests ware performed on selected samples of the clay soils (see Figure 5). Soluble sulfate testing was also performed on selected samples (see Figure 6). A lime / Atterberg limits series test was performed on a selected day soil sample (see Figure 7.) 4.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The project consists of reconstructing the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Sandy Lake Road in Coppell, Texas. See Plan of Borings (Figure 1) for site configuration, location and aerial view. 4.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, indudkV descriptions of the various strata and their depths and thickness, are presented on the Logs of Borings. Note that depth on all borfts refers to the depth from the existing grade or ground surface present at the time of the investigation. Boundaries between the various soil types are approximate. ALLIAIWE 0EUTECrmIICAL GROUP E10-0308 PAte 2 4.3 SITE GEOLOGY As shown on the Dallas sheet of the Ceolooig Atlas of Texas the project site is located in an area underlain by deposits of the Woodbine Formation. This Formation typically consists of shale, sandstone, and cemented sand interbedded with day seams. Soils derived from the formation are typically moderately to highly active clays exhibiting moderate to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. 4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The borings were advanced using continuous flight auger methods. Advancement of the borings using these methods allows observation of the initial zones of seepage. No groundwater was encountered in the test borings during drilling. We were unable to obtain delayed water level readings since the borings had to be badcfilied and pavement patched immediately after drilling completion. It is not possible to accurately predict the magnitude of subsurface water fluctuations that might occur based upon short-term observations. The subsurface water conditions are subject to change with variations in climatic conditions and are functions of subsurface soil conditions, rainfall and water levels within nearby creeks and ponds. 5.0 ANALYSIS AND SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SOIL MOVEMENTS The subsurface exploration revealed the presence of active day and sandy day soils. The surficial day soils have a moderate to high shrink/swell potential depending upon their moisture condition at the time of construction. Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) calculations were performed using moisture contents, penetrometer readings, and swell test results to estimate the swell potential of the soil. PVR values based on current grades and current moisture conditions have been estimated to range from 2 to 3 Inches. It should be noted that if the day sods are allowed to significantly dry after pavement removal and prior to pladng the new pavement that the potential vertical rise could lease to over 4+ Inches. ALLIAME MOTECHNICAL GROUP E10-0306 PAGE 3 It is imperative that all cracks and joints in the pavement be sealed and maintained by routine sealing in order to minimize differential pavement deflections caused by soil swelling. It is also imperative that positive drainage be provided along the pavement edges to prevent ponding near the curb lines. 5.2 PROOFROLLING AND FILL PLACEMENT Prior to placing fill, the exposed subgrade at base of cut should be proofrolled. Proofrolling should also be performed after removing the existing pavement and cutting to final grades. Proofrolling can generally be accomplished using a heavy (25 ton or greater total weight) pneumatic tired roller making several passes over the areas. The proofroiling operations should be performed under the direction of the geotechnlcsl engineer. Where soft or compressible zones are encountered, these areas should be removed to a firm subgrade. Any resulting void areas should be backfilled to finished subgrade in 8 inch compacted lifts as specified below. After completion of proofrolling, the ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of 8 inches and recompacted to levels specified below prior to placement of additional fill. We recommend that fill soils be compacted at -1% to +3% above optimum to 98% of standard Proctor density (ASTM D698). 5.3 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE All grading should provide positive drainage sway from the proposed roadway and should prevent water from collecting or discharging near the pavements. Water must not be pern*ed to pond adjacent to or beneath the pavements during or after construction. Otherwise, upward soil swell movements could exceed the estimates contained in this report. The pavements will be subject to some post construction movement (see Section 5.1 of this report). Joints in the concrete pavements should be sealed to prevent the infiltration of water. Since post construction movement of pavement may occur, joints should be periodically inspected and resealed where necessary. -` ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP EIO -03+08 PACE 4 5.4 STABILIZATION WITH HYDRATED LIME The subsurface exploration revealed surficiai materials consisting of plastic clay and sandy day soils having a moderate to high shrirksweil potential. These day soils react with hydrated lime, which serves to improve their support value and provide a firm, uniform subgrade beneath the paving. Based on the anticipated soil materials to be exposed at pavement subgrade and based upon a Lime / Atterberg Limits series test (see Figure 7) performed on a selected Gay sample, seven (7) percent hydrated lime by dry weight (48 pounds per square yard per fl- inch depth) will be required to stabilize the existing clay subgrade. Soluble sulfate testing on selected samples of the clay soils resulted in soluble sulfate concentrations ranging from 100 to 130 (see Figure 6). Based upon these concentration levels, the risk of sulfate / lime induced heave is low. The lime should be thoroughly mixed and blended with the active subgrade soil (TxDOT Item 260) and the mixture compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D698, within -1 % to +3% of the soil's optimum moisture content. We recommend that this lime stabilization extend 1 to 2 feet beyond exposed pavement edges, if possible, in order to reduce the effects of shrinkage during extended dry periods. After final grading has been achieved, depth checks should be performed to verify that the specified depth of stabilization is present. Sand should be specifically prohibited beneath pavement areas during final grading (after stabilization), since these more porous soils can allow water inflow, resulting in heave and strength loss of subgrade soils. It show be specified that only lime- stabilized soil will be allowed for fine grading. After fine grading each area in preparation for paving, the subgrade surface should be lightly moistened, as needed, and recompacted to obtain a tight non- yielding subgrade. Project specifications should allow a curing period between iMtIal and final mixing of the lirne/soil mixture. After initial mixing, the lime treated subgrade should be lightly rolled and maintained at or within 5 percentage points above the soil's optimum moisture content until final mixing and compaction. We recommend a 3-day curing period for these soils. The ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP E1O-0308 PAGE 5 following gradation requirements are recommended for the stabilized materials prior to final compaction: Minimum Passing 13/4" Sieve Minimum Passing 3/4" Sieve Minimum Passing No. 4 Sieve Percent 100 85 60 All non - slaking aggregates retained on the No. 4 sieve should be removed prior to testing. After final grading has been performed, depth checks and PI verification checks should be performed to verify that proper stabilization has been achieved. The prepared subgrade should be protected and moist cured or sealed with a bituminous material for a minimum of 7 days or until the pavement materials are placed. Pavement areas should be graded at all times to prevent ponding and infiltration of excessive moisture on or adjacent to the pavement areas. Due to the presence of expansive day soils, pavement movements should be anticipated. Inspection during construction is particularly important to insure proper construction procedures are followed. 5.5 RECOMPACTED PAVEMENT SUBGIRADE If lime- stabilization of the pavement subgrade is not performed, we recommend that the upper eight -(8) inches of subgrade soil be compacted at -2% to +2% of optimum moisture to a minimum of 98% Standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). The subgrade should be proof - rolled prior to subgrade compaction. Only on -site soil (comparable to the underlying subgrade soil) should be used for fine grading the pavement areas. After fine grading, the subgrade should again be watered if needed and re- compacted in order to re-achieve the moisture and density levels discussed above and provide a tight non - yielding subgrade. Sand should be specifically prohibited beneath pavement areas during final grading, since these more porous soils can allow water inflow, resulting In heave and strength loss of subgrade soils. It should be specified that only day soft YA be allowed for fine grading. After fine grading each area in preparation for paving, the subgrade surface should be lightly moistened, as needed, and recompacted to obtain a tight non - yielding subside. ALLIANCE GEO'TECHNICAL GROUP EIO -0308 PAGE 6 The subgrade moisture content and density must be maintained until paving is completed. The subgrade should be watered just prior to paving to assure concrete placement over a moist subgrade. if a rain event occurs prior to paving, the subgrade should be aerated and re- tested prior to paving. Due to the presence of expansive day soils, post construction upward pavement movements should be anticipated. Inspection during construction is particularly important to insure proper construction procedures are followed. 6.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The required pavement section depends on the traffic volume and the frequency of truck traffic. We understand that the following design traffic data should be used for the design lane. Annual ESALs 300,000 Growth Rate 2.5% Design Life 30 Years The pavement section recommendations provided below in this report have been developed based upon the above traffic information: 6.1 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS The pavement section recommendations provided below were designed based upon AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures using DARWin 3.1 computer program. A summary of the inputs are provided below: Design E 18's: Initial Serviceability: Terminal Serviceability: Modulus of Rupture: Elasticity Modulus: Effective k- value: Retity Level: Standard Deviation: Load Transfer J: Drainage Coefficient: 13,171,000 4.5 2.5 588 psi (4,000 psi Concrete) 3,969,000 psi 225 psinn - for 8 inches of Nme- stabilized subgrade 8 0 paMn — for 8 inches of compacted subgrade 0.39 3.2 1.0 ALUANCE OEOTECHNICAL GROUP E10-0306 PMR 7 Table 1 presents the recommended pavement section for this project: TABLE 1- RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS MAIN STREET RECONSTRUCTION 11.0 inch Portland Cement Concrete* 8.0 inch Lime - Stabilized Subgrade ** Or 12.0 inch Portland Cement Concrete*** 8.0 inch Compacted Subgrade * * ** * A construction tolerance of about % inch is included. ** Should be placed in accordance with Section 5.4 of this report. * ** A construction tolerance of about Y2 inch is included. * * ** Should be placed in accordance with Section 5.5 of this report. The concrete should have a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a minimum 28 day flexural strength of 588 psi. Concrete quality will be important in order to produce the desired flexural strength and long term durability. Assuming a nominal maximum aggregate size of 1 inch to 1 318 inches, we recommend that the concrete have entrained air of 5 percent (i 1%) with a maximum water cement ratio of 0.45. Proper joint placement and design is critical to pavement performance. Load transfer at all joints and maintenance of watertight joints should be provided. Control joints should be sawed as soon as possible after placing concrete and before shrinkage cracks occur. All joints including sawed joints should be properly cleaned and sealed as soon as possible to avoid infiltration of water. Our previous experience indicates that joint spacing on 12 to 15 foot centers have generally performed saHsfadorily. It is our recommendation that the oonare0e pavement be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed on chairs on approximeteiy 18 -inch centers In each ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP EIO PAW 8 direction. We recommend that the perimeter of the pavements have a stiffening section to prevent possible distress due to heavy wheel loads near the edge of the pavements. 6.2 PAVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS AD joints and pavements should be inspected at regular intervals to ensure proper performance and to prevent crack propagation. The soils at the site are active and differential heave within the paving areas could potentially occur. The service life of paving may be reduced due to water infiltration into subgrade soils through heave induced cracks in the paving section. This will result In softening and loss of strength of the subgrade soils. A regular maintenance program to seal paving cracks will help prolong the service life of the paving. The life of the pavement can be increased with proper drainage. Areas should be graded to prevent ponding adjacent to curbs or pavement edges. Backfill materials, which could hold water behind the curb, should not be permitted. Flat pavement grades should be 7.0 FIELD SUPERVISION AND CONSTRUCTION TESTING Field density and moisture content determinations should be made on each lift of fill with a minimum of 1 test per lift per 5,000 square feet of pavement. Supervision by the field technician and the project engineer is required. Some adjustments in the test frequencies may be required based upon the general fill types and soil conditions at the time of fill placement. Many problems can be avoided or solved In the field if proper inspection and testing services are provided. It is recommended that site preparation, lime - stabilization, concrete placement, and fill compaction be monitored by a qualified engineering technician. Density tests should be performed to verify compaction and moisture content of any earthwork. Inspection should be performed prior to and during concrete placement operations. Alliance Geotechnical Group, Inc. employs a group of experienced, well- trained technicians for Inspection and construction materials testing who would be pleased to assist you on this project. 8.0 LIMITATIONS The professional services, which have been performed, the findings obtained, and the reconmxnendations prepared were accomplished in accordance with currently accepted ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP EIO-0306 PAGe geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The possibility always exists that the subsurface conditions at the site may vary somewhat from those encountered in the test borings. The number and spacing of test borings were chosen in such a manner as to decrease the possibility of undiscovered abnormalities, while considering the nature of loading, size, and cost of the project. If there are any unusual conditions differing significantly from those described herein, Alliance Geotechnical Group, Inc. should be notified to review the effects on the performance of the recommended foundation system. The recommendations given in this report were prepared exclusively for the use of the City of Coppell and their consultants. The information supplied herein is applicable only for the design of the previously described development to be constructed at locations indicated at this site and should not be used for any other structures, locations, or for any other purpose. We will retain the samples acquired for this project for a period of 30 days subsequent to the submittal date printed on the repot. After this period, the samples will be discarded unless otherwise notified by the owner in writing. ALLIANCE GEOTECHNI CAL GROUP E104M PAGE 10 FIGURES i� F.: ttt � too T " a c N ti • - 0 341L b 9 ALLIANCE Pavement Reconstruction PLAN OF BORINGS FIGURE FDenton Tap & Sandy lake, Coppell GEOTECHNICAI. GROUP b M [)ale 4 /06/10 Rewsrd N/A scale P I 19 E10 -0306 LOG OF BORING B -1 — 125 — 15 17.5 — Notes: FIGURE:2 ALLIANCE GEOTECMNICAL GROUP Project: Pavement Reconstruction - Denton Tap 81 Sandy Lake - Coppell, Texas Project No.: E10 -0308 Date: 0312812010 Elev.: Location: See Figure 1 _ Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry Depth to water when checked: during drilling was: Dry Depth to caving when checked: was: EMAn W DEPTH tat SOOL 8YVAM s sv" Ors 4 FWLD TEST 0 DESCRIPTION MC LL % PL % P� 1.200 % DD PPM UNCON Stan ° *} PAVER over 1" SAND over 8" CONCRETE — Re ddis h brown 8 tan CLAY w/ =and (F ILL) 17 16 48 16 32 116 4:4 4.5. Reddish brown sandy CLAY w/ trace gravel — 2.5 4.5+ Light brown & light gray sandy CLAY w/ gravel ^ 13 35 13 23 124 4.5+ 5 4.5+ _.45+_ Light brown & light gray sandy CLAY w/ numerous — gravel 4.3 7.5 " - Light brown & light gray sandy CLAY w/ sand seams 3.e 4.3 10 Boring terminated at 10' — — 125 — 15 17.5 — Notes: FIGURE:2 ALLIANCE GEOTECMNICAL GROUP LOG OF BORING B-2 Project: Pavement Reconstruction - Denton Tap & Sandy Lake - Coppell, Texas Project No.: E10 -0308 Date: 0312612010 Elev.: Location: See Figure 1 Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry Depth to water when checked: during drilling was: Dry Depth to caving when checked: was: EMArM W& SYMBOL$ MC LL PL -200 W PREN LW-CM Sven DEPTH M % OM DESCRIPTION % % % pd Ist k81 % 0") & fWL0 TM WA F0 – Y �AP VER over J SAND : over 6.5" CO Brown & gray jaody-Q� wl gravel (FILL) 10 - k - - - Reddish brown & gray very sandy C li - 13 1i - 16 3 2,25 .2.5 2,0 — light gray 57 Rs ---- Reddish brown very sandy C Light brown klight gray CLAY w/ sand 4.3 3,6 4,2 4.4 Boring terminated at 10' Notes: FIWRE:3 ALLIANCE GEOTECHNICAL GROUP KEY TO LOG TERMS & SYMBOLS Symbol Description Strata svmbols W q,' Paver over Sand over Concrete CLAY CLAY, sandy Soil Samplers l ] Rock Core . Thin Wall Shelby Tube Notes 1. sxploratory borings were drilled on dates indicated using truck mounted drilling equipment. 2. Water level observations are noted on boring logs. 3. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported on the boring logo. Abbreviations used axes DD . natural dry density (pcf) LL . liquid limit ( %) MC . natural moisture content (k) PL . plastic limit M vncon.w unconfined compression (tef) PI . plasticity index P.Pen.• hand penetro"ter (tai) -200 to percent passing 0200 4. Rock Cores RsC • (Recovery) sun of core sample recovered divided by length of run, expressed as percentage. RQD • (Rock Quality Designation) sun of core sample recovery 4" or greater in length divided by the run, expressed as percentage. ALLIANCE GEOTECHN!CAL GROUP SWELL TEST RESULTS BORING DEPTH UNIT ATTERBERG LIMITS LOAD NO. (FEET) WEIGHT MOISTURE CONTENT MOISTURE CONTENT (PSF) VERTICAL SWELL LL PL PI B-1 2 -3 116.2 48 16 32 15.9 17.8 313 2.7 B -1 4 -5 123.8 36 13 23 12.7 13.6 563 0.8 PROCEDURE: 1. Sample placed in oonfining ring, design load (including overburden) applied, free water with surfactant made available, and sample allowed to swell completely. 2. Load removed and final moisture content determined. SOLUBLE SULFATES TEST RESULTS (PPM) BORING NO. DEPTH SOLUBLE SULFATES (FEET) (PPM) B -1 1 - 1.5 130 B -1 2 -3 100 B -1 4-5 110 moc r } LIME SERIES RESULTS ME u i� �� ADDED uMrrP� N N 0 48 32 4 15 17 B -1 2 -3 6 42 11 8 40 9