Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
ST0301A-LR031124
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BETHEL AND COPPELL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION COPPELL, TEXAS TMI REPORT NO. DE 03-155' GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BETHEL AND COPPELL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION COPPELL, TEXAS TMI REPORT NO. DE 03.155 TO FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. DALLAS,TEXAS BY TERRA -MAR, INC. _ DALLAS / FORT WORTH / HOUSTON / AUSTIN NOVEMBER 24, 2003 DE03 -155 TERRA-MAR Consulting Engineers • Geotechnical • Environmental • Construction Materials Testing DALLAS • FORT WORTH 0 HOUSTON ® AUSTIN ® LONGVIEW November 24, 2003 Ms. Tricia H. Hatley, RE, Freese and Nichols, Inc. 1701 Market Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75202 -2001 Re: Geotechnical Investigation Bethel and Coppeil Road Reconstruction Coppell, Texas TMI Report No.: DE03 -155 Dear Ms. Hatley; The attached report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed for the above referenced project. This report provides recommendations to guide design and construction of the bridge foundations, bridge approach retaining wails, and roadway pavement. The results bf the field and laboratory investigations are also presented in this report. It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project. Please call us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, TERRA -MAR, INC. Roger K. Southworth, P.E. Project M nager Tim G. Abrams, P.E. Manager — Geotechnical Services Copies Submitted: (3) 0°q Pa80PV9PO.PV4Pa04P0q Pa04 s ° »-g0000.oPa00000000ano4400004 P 4 ° q a °4 4° r 11050 Ables Lane, Dallas, Texas 75229 Phone. 972 - 488-8800 Fax-.972-486-8080 TABLE OF CONTENTS DE03-155 TERRA-MAR Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....—.— ......... .—..~—.—...... . ............... 1 1j PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......... ............... ...... .... ----. ... .... 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ............. ..... ........ . ............... 1 2�O FIELD INVESTIGATION ...... ................ ................................ .......... '.......................... 2 3 .0 LABORATORY TESTING ........... ......... ........................ ................................... .`- .... 3 4.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION .............. .................................................. . ... ....... ...... 3 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..... .. .................. .............................. . ........................ 4 5.1 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS ........ ......—.......................... —...................... 4 6.2GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................... ......... ....... .. ........... .—...4 6.0 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ............................. .............................................................. 5 6.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING RE8|GTANCE.— ....... .............. ... . ... .... ......... ........ 5 O.2 GROUP EFFECTS .............................. ............................................... ................ b 0 .8PO}NT-OF-F[X[TY ............... ........ ..... . ... ............................ ~~................. ........ 6 O.4 DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCT ION CONSIDERATIONS ............................ ...-0 7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .......... ................ ............. .—.....—.7 7.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ....................... ......... .—........... ........ 7 7 .2VVALLBACKF|LL ........................................... ......... ......-.'....... ...—............. .7 7.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ............................... ...—..—....... . ... .... — .......... 8 7.4WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM ............. ....... .. .... ................... ............ . ......... .—.8 8.0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKF|LL STABILIZATION .............. ....... .--...—.---.'.—.Q 81 PROJECT HISTORY ..... .................. ------.—...-----------._—..0 8.2TRENOH BACKF|LL EVALUATION ............... ........... —.....-----..._...... 1O 8.3BACKFiLL STABILIZATION ........................ .................................... .................... 1O 9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... --,..'---....... ....11 9.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN .................. ....... ............... ..~.—~—.~............. ... 11 &2DE8IBN TRAFFIC LOADING ............. ............. .....—........ ^...,'..... ............ 11 Q .8 PAVEMENT SECTIONS ............................. ....... ............... ....................... ... 12 9'4Si]LF/YTE INDUCED HEAVE CONSIDERATIONS ........... ............. ....... ......... 12 9,5 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE .... ............. .`—.—...................................... 13 Q.6 PAVEMENT JO|NTS. ...................... .................. ....... ....... .. ... .13 8 .7L|ME STABILIZATION .... —........ . ................ — ........ . .......... —....................... 14 8.8 GENERAL PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...... ................... ... . ....... 14 18,0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ......... .................... .. .................................... 14 11.0 LIMITATIONS ........... .................. —....................... —.----.--.--.......... —.15 DE03-155 TERRA-MAR FIGURES FIGURE SITE VICINITY MAP ... ............................... .................. ... ... ......... . ... . .......... -. ... .- .... 1 PLAN [}F BORINGS .......... ..................... .................................. ....... ^^^^---~-'2 � LOG [)F BORINGS ................. ....... ................... .-- ....... -......................................... .5 KEY TO THE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS AND SYMBOLS ON BOR[NG LOGS ......... - _. - _.. 13 APPENDIX APPENDIX LIME/PI SERIES AND SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS ........... ...--....... .-~ .... A PATTDN.BURK&TH(JMP8ON BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY DATA ......... .......... B TRAFFIC COUNT DATA .............. ... ' .... ......... --- ....... - ......... --------............. C DE03-155 TERRA-MAR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BETHEL AND COPPELL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION COPPELL, TEXAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of reconstructing sections of Bethel Road and Coppell Road in Coppell, Texas, Bethel Road will be reconstructed from Freeport Parkway east about 5,300 feet to Denton Tap Road. The section of Coppell Road from Bethel Road north about 1,930 feet to a point about 130 feet north of Cooper Lane will also be reconstructed. The project limits are shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Bethel and.Coppell Roads currently consist of two -lane roads with asphalt pavement sections and side ditches. The new roadways will have two lanes with curb and gutters. The planned lane widths are 14 feet. The pavement will be Portland cement concrete. A new bridge will be constructed for Bethel Road over Grapevine Creek. Retaining walls may be required at the bridge approaches. It is understood that the walls will be about two feet high. Grade changes of less than about 1 to 2 feet will be required to develop the pavement subgrade elevations. However, the site grades leading up to the planned bridge will be raised about 2 feet to provide additional freeboard above the 100 -year flood plain. A portion of Bethel Road has experienced distress due to settlement of sewer trench backfill. Stabilization of this trench backfill, if warranted, is desired prior to new road construction. 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The purposes of this geotechnical investigation were to evaluate subsurface conditions along the planned roadway alignments and to develop geotechnical recommendations to guide design and construction of the bridge foundations, bridge approach retaining walls, and roadway pavement. Our scope of work included; 1. Drilling six borings to evaluate the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions along the roadways, 2. Recommendations for design of drilled shaft bridge foundations, including estimated depth of bearing stratum, allowable bearing resistance, point of fixity, and estimated foundation settlements. DE03 -155 PAGE 1 4"EK -MAK 3. Recommendations for design of retaining walls, including allowable bearing resistance, sliding resistance, equivalent fluid pressures, and drainage and backfill requirements. 4. Recommendations for reducing the potential for future settlement and cracking of the section of Bethel Road pavement over a utility trench. 5. Recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation and recommended sections for Portland cement concrete pavement. 6. Discussion of the geotechnical conditions that could impact construction. 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Four borings were drilled to depths of 10 feet for the roadways and two borings were drilled to depths of 50 and 55 feet for the planned bridge. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Plan of Borings, Figures 2 through 4. The results of the field investigation are presented on the Logs of Borings, figures 5 through 12. A key to the descriptive terms and symbols used on the logs is presented on Figure 13. Truck - mounted drill rigs were used to advance the borings and to obtain samples for laboratory. evaluation. The overburden soils were sampled with split -spoon and thin - walled, seamless tube samplers. The underlying shale was cored using a rock core barrel. The samples were extruded in the field, logged, sealed, and packaged to protect them from disturbance and to maintain their in -situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed to evaluate the relative density of the granular soils. The SPT consists of measuring the penetration of a standard two -inch- diameter split -spoon sampler driven by a 940 -pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The SPT results are shown at the respective depths on the boring logs. Texas Cone Penetrometer tests (TCP) were performed to evaluate the bearing properties of the shale formation. The TCP test consists of measuring the penetration of a 3- inch - diameter cone driven by a 170 -pound hammer failing a distance of 24 inches. The TCP test results are shown at the respective depths on the boring logs. The ground surface elevation and project station number at each boring location is indicated at the top of the boring logs,. The elevations and station numbers were estimated from the plan and profile sheets provided by Freese and Nichols, Inc. and should be considered approximate. DE03 -155 PAGE 2 TERRA-MAR Water levels within the borings were recorded during drilling and at completion of drilling operations. The boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings after the water level readings were recorded. The water level readings are presented on the boring logs. 3,0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed to characterize the engineering properties of the soil and rock formations. Classification tests included liquid and plastic limits, moisture contents, and dry unit weights. Unconfined compression tests were performed to evaluate the undrained compressive strength of the rock core samples. Nand penetrometer tests were performed to estimate the consistency of the cohesive soils. The laboratory test results are provided at the appropriate sample depths on the boring logs. Soluble sulfate tests were performed to evaluate the potential for lime /sulfate induced heave. A lime /Pi series test was performed to evacuate the optimum lime application rate for lime stabilization of the pavement subgrade. The so €uble sulfate and lime/P1 series test results are presented on the Analytical Report provided in Appendix A. The soil and rock field classifications were checked in the laboratory through visual classification of samples. Samples were classified according to color, texture, predominant material type, and consistency. 4.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A report entitled Geotechnical Consulting Services, Sewer Line Backfill, Bethel Road — Grapevine Creek to Near Royal Lane, Coppell, Texas was prepared by Patton, Burk & Thompson (PBT Project No. 1345 dated January 21, 1998). This report was prepared to present PBT findings on the cause of pavement cracking and to present recommendations to prevent further pavement distress. PST's study included drilling nine borings along Bethel Road and laboratory testing of the recovered samples. The report findings indicated that the pavement distress was due to trench backfill settlement. Information from this previous investigation was used to supplement the information obtained from the borings drilled for this project. Copies of their boring logs and laboratory test data are attached in Appendix B. DE03 -155 PAGE 3 TERRA -MAR 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITION 5.1 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS A description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, including descriptions of the soil and rock types sampled, and the layer depths and thickness are presented on the boring logs. A brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered is provided below. Note that the depths on the boring logs refer to the depth from the ground surface at the time of the investigation. Boundaries between the various strata are approximate. Very stiff to hard sandy clay and clayey sand fill was encountered in Boring B -1 to a depth of about 8% feet. Very stiff to hard clay fill was encountered in Borings B -5 and B -6 to respective depths of about 4 feet and 14 feet. Fill was not encountered in the other borings. The fill in Boring B -1 was underlain by naturally occurring dense sand from 8�/- feet to the boring termination depth of 10 feet. Borings B -2 through B -4 encountered very stiff to hard sandy clay to the boring termination depth of 10 feet. The fill in Boring B -5 was underlain by very stiff to hard clay to about 12 feet and interbedded layers of cemented sand and weathered shale 12 to 20 feet. Unweathered shale was encountered from 20 feet to the boring termination depth of 50 feet. The fill in Boring B -6 was underlain by very stiff to hard sandy clay to about 19 feet and weathered shale from about 19 feet to 24 feet. Unweathered shale was encountered from 24 feet to the boring termination depth of 55 feet. The clays and sandy clays are moderately plastic, with liquid limits ranging between 27 and 59 percent and plasticity indices _(F . rang,!,n.g- :,b.etween 13 aad._.38,,..pe,rcent. The clay in Borings B -5 and B -6 had unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 1.2 to 9.6 tsf. The unconfined compressive strength of the shale ranged from 15.6 to 57.4 tons per square foot (tsf) with an average compressive strength of 27.1 tsf. The TCP tests in the shale ranged from 1 to 3 inches per 100 blows, with an average penetration of 1 inches per 100 blows. 5.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Seepage water was encountered in Borings B -1 and B -6 at respective depths of 4 feet and 20 feet during drilling. Seepage' water was not encountered in the other borings during drilling. The groundwater conditions may change with variations in climatic conditions, surface water runoff and the water level in the Grapevine Creek, DE03 -155 PAGE 4 TERRA-MAR 6.0 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS 6.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING RESISTANCE Straight -sided drilled shafts founded in the unweathered dark gray shale formation are recommended for support of the bridge. Unweathered shale was encountered at depths ranging from about 20 to 24 feet ( about e levati on 474 to 476) at the bride boring locations. The recommended end - bearing and skin - friction resistance values for design of the drilled shafts bearing into the unweathered shale are presented in Table 1. The end - bearing resistance includes a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The skin- friction resistance includes a . factor of safety of at least 2.0. TABLE 'I - RECOMMENDED DRILLED SHAFT DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Notes for Table 1 1 The higher allowable end - bearing resistariee can be considered after a minimum penetration of one -shaft diameter into the hig er .th shale. For example, a 36 -inch- diameter shaft would have to extend to El. 4 . il in order to use the 40,000 psf allowable end - bearing resistance. The minimum penetration depth should measured from the top of unweathered shale or from the maximum scour depth elevation, whichever is deeper. 2. The skin - friction resistance should b e ne l�ected in upper 2 feet of _pr�,traton_n the d ark ar m chafe. The allowable skin - friction resistance should also be neglected for any portion of the shaft extending above the maximum scour depth of the creek channel or for any portion where casing is used. 6.2 GROUP EFFECTS For groups of drilled shafts, where the spacing between shafts will be less than 3.0 shaft diameters (3.01D) center to center, a, reduction- •facfio,,K shoufci be..p.pl•ed fo the a.o!ab1 > skin- friction resistance fob the determination of required.,shaft.penetra $ ans.... For shafts touching, a DE03.155 PAGE 5 TERRA-MAR Allowable End- Bearing Allowable Skin - Friction Resistance Elevation Resistance Compression Tension EI. 474 to 460 30,000 psf 2,700 psf 2,000 psf El. 460 to 445 40,000 psf 3,400 psf 2,600 psf Design Notes for Table 1 1 The higher allowable end - bearing resistariee can be considered after a minimum penetration of one -shaft diameter into the hig er .th shale. For example, a 36 -inch- diameter shaft would have to extend to El. 4 . il in order to use the 40,000 psf allowable end - bearing resistance. The minimum penetration depth should measured from the top of unweathered shale or from the maximum scour depth elevation, whichever is deeper. 2. The skin - friction resistance should b e ne l�ected in upper 2 feet of _pr�,traton_n the d ark ar m chafe. The allowable skin - friction resistance should also be neglected for any portion of the shaft extending above the maximum scour depth of the creek channel or for any portion where casing is used. 6.2 GROUP EFFECTS For groups of drilled shafts, where the spacing between shafts will be less than 3.0 shaft diameters (3.01D) center to center, a, reduction- •facfio,,K shoufci be..p.pl•ed fo the a.o!ab1 > skin- friction resistance fob the determination of required.,shaft.penetra $ ans.... For shafts touching, a DE03.155 PAGE 5 TERRA-MAR reduction factor of 50 percent should be used. For a spacing of 3,OD, where D is the diameter of the largest adjacent shaft, no reduction is necessary. A straight -line interpolated reduction should be used between drilled shafts touching and a spacing of 3.OD. 6.3 POINT-OF-FIXITY 8_�a�ty a let plu_two ,ft below the _ground surface or below the _ma) inum scour (ieptla-.of.. the cree. k- cha, nne1,,,. wh.l che)4er.- Is-, dee .per., -Uze - structural an sy, is of th _brddge_ _.calumns.._ _ unwepber_ed- .s.h..ale....at..J.est.2 s} ft. Lameters. l�elo _va�ho_.top_�.f__�?Ctwe.tlered, shale or below_ �� them. a. �cirnu.r�.,.scata,r.._deptht.ra shale,.,whtche�er_..1..s.._de� per,. to_�eyelop. the_re�,orr�mended._point of�fixity ; ,_ 6.4 DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Groundwater seepage was encountered in Boring B -6 at a depth of about 20 feet during drilling and the shale is overlain by sands and sandy clays. Groundwater seepage and flowing sand may be encountered during drilled shaft excavation. ,.or7st,�ctlpn otlae „drilled_. .,, ,,.,.�sfaafts.will,req.u3.re,. the, �. �s. e„ of:. fiemporary.casirag...l:f.,cauln:g. s.ands,,.or >,,.se.�pag,e wate:r.,.:io�,exce.ss� 2.,, jnhe.., i Ces nrtle.,ofgole..., readies ,it.pennedlepSh<.,Temporary casing should be seated below the zone of seepage and properly sealed to prevent seepage into the drilled shaft excavation. Care must be taken that a sufficient head of plastic concrete is maintained within the casing during extraction. Concrete for the drilled shafts should be in accordance with American Concrete Institute Specification ACI 336. The- dftUed., sh.aft-c.onerete,..s.hauid- have_., a.. .sl.ump - between -5.. - and- -.Z-.. i nches , The concrete should be placed in a manner to avoid striking the sides of the shaft and reinforcing steef....,T,h;..d,cllle,d _ shafts :::Shoald._be:,filled__with co. ncrete.> within,8.fou,rs..after.•the— __4%, lgn ...penetratlon_is..rea,ched..., - �T he. wstr- uctural pl ans..,.for_.the,..existin.g,..: brickg e..:should..,be...,reuiewed- to -,check...that.,the._ .new -..shaft -. _ constrict an will nat,. with, the _locations, of existing fgundations..._ E xistin g foundations should not be remove d=,they sho ld,_be cmt_Qff_ belo_w=g.rade_ The dark gray shale may contain very hard sandstone, layers. Experience indicates that discontinuous sandstone layers can range from several inches thick to several feet thick and can have compressive strengths in excess of 8,000 psi. Difficulties in penetrating these DE03 -155 PAGE 6 TERRA-MAR layers using conventional drilling equipment may be encountered. Hard rock drilling equipment or rock chisels could be required to get through the sandstone layers. It is recommended that a local foundation contractor_ fa.mi. liar.... with,..the_._iaGal_.w ..conditions be retained_ for fa4nda.tio.n.,construction;- Allowable bearing resistance recommendations provided in this report are based on proper construction procedures, including maintaining a dry shaft excavation and proper cleaning of the bearing surfaces prior to placing the reinforcing steel and concrete. The drilled shaft excavations should be inspected to check that the drilled holes are properly cleaned and dry prior to concrete placement, and to help verify the bearing stratum. 7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 7,1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed retaining walls are recommended to be supported by spread footing foundations. The foundations can bear into the existing very stiff to hard clay fill. -A footin The .,.al.lowable„ bearing ; resistance„ includes,. a, factor of safety of,at „least 3.0. r T ,, e� . . w .,f id. and ..srJd.�xt�td..a..raitauxzt.Q13 ir3cbea bela�v�he,. fin .at..�xterior_site...gr..ade.._ A_.coeffi.cJent-.of .sJ ouncle— m clay Foundation ke s can be designed .using,,,a,,,ssy etfi. prs. „tteeAofb,00...,psf .per fo,af cif em bedmen t. T.h „, Wal,, design,,.shAUi .1!Y.. mir�l.txtm fa,ctox s��safe_ty o 1_ a,g,a €.n.st s.ildin,gT. The foundation bearing grade should be observed and tested by the geotechnical engineer or a representative of the engineer to check that the foundation soils are suitable for support. Any unsuitable bearing soil should be removed and replaced with fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density at a moisture content between —1 and +3 percentage points of optimum. 7.2 WALL BACKFILL The retaining walls will be subject to lateral earth pressures from the soil backfill against the walls. The type of material used as backfill against the walls will affect the lateral earth pressures that the walls must be designed to resist. Three types of locally available material are recommended for the wall backfill. These backfill types include: DE03 -155 PAGE 7 TERRA-MAR 1. On -Site Clay - On -site clay having a P1 less than 40 percent can be used for wall backfill for walls up to 5 feet high. 2. Select Fill - Select fill should have a liquid limit less than 40 percent and a plasticity index (PI) less than 15 percent. The fill .,shou.ld.have an eff ctive shearing. -r...esi.sta.nce..o ' tiat...least 28 dagree 3. t=ree- Draining Granular Fill - Free- draining granular fill includes sand, crushed stone, crushed limestone, sand - gravel mixture, washed crushed concrete, or a sand - crushed stone mixture. The material should have less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and less than 30 percent passing the No. 40 sieve. The minus 40 sieve material should be non plastic. The granular fill should have an effective angle of shearing resistance of at least 34 The wall backfill should be placed in maximum 8 -inch lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor (ASTM D -698) maximum dry density for cohesive soils or,to a relative density of at least 70 percent for granular soils (ASTM 4253 and 4254). The moisture content for cohesive soils should range between -1 and +3 percentage points of optimum. Granular fill should be placed at a moisture content which will allow the desired relative density to be achieved. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used directly against the walls, Hand - operated equipment should be used within 4 feet of the walls. 7.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Recommended equivalent fluid pressures for retaining wall design are presented in Table 2. Active equivalent earth pressures are recommended for retaining walls where the top of the wall is free to deflect. At -rest equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for walls where the top of the wall is restrained from movement, Equivalent fluid pressures are presented for both drained and undralned conditions, and a level backfill behind the wall. The wall backfill _ should exten at l 18 inc hes from the wall and on a one horizontal to,two vertical bacic�. slime behind.tle wal� dulQ. fbe. raaammetaded ..tafe.ral.rear- tla- pesrsr�. The wall design should include any surcharge loads behind the wall. DE03 -155 PAGE 8 TERRA -MAR TABU 2 - EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURES Wall Backfill Equivalent Fluid Pressure Active, pcf At -Rest, pcf Drained Condition Undrained Condition Drained Condition Undrained Condition ' On -Site Clays for retaining walls up to 5 feet high 55 95 80 105 i Select Fill 45 85 65 95 Free - Draining Granular Soils 35 80 55 90 7.4 WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM The walls should have a wall backfill drainage system if a drained condition is assumed for design to reduce the potential buildup of hydrostatic pressures against the walls. Weep holes can be used for backfill drainage for walls less than 5 feet high. One -cubic -foot of free - draining aggregate is recommended behind each weep hole. The weep holes should be spaced no greater than 10 -foot on- center, with a minimum of two, 3- inch - diameter weep holes per wall. The drainage aggregate should meet the gradation requirements for ASTM C -33 coarse concrete aggregate No. 57. A geotextile should be placed between the drainage material and the backfill soils. The geotextile is recommended to consist of Mirafi 140NL, Amoco 4545, or equivalent. 8.0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL STABILIZATION 8.1 PROJECT HISTORY A sanitary sewer was constructed along the eastbound lane of Bethel Road between January 1996 and May or June 1996. Prior to sewer construction, the existing asphalt pavement was removed. The roadway was re -paved with asphalt following sewer construction. It was reported that the sewer trench ranged from about 10 to 15 feet deep and that the trench was at least 4 feet wide. Patton, Burk, and Thompson (PBT) reported in their Geofechnical Consulting Services report that pavement rutting and settlement was present along the eastbound lane in November DE03 -155 PAGE 9 TERRA -MAR 1997. in their report, they concluded that the pavement distress was due to improper compaction of the sewer trench backfill. They recommended complete removal and recompaction of the backfill, partial removal and recompaction of the backfill, or placement of a geogrid to bridge over the poorly compacted backfill, It is understood that the City of Coppell elected to recompacf the upper 3 feet of the backfill to a minimum of 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The existing roadway was then re- paved, The existing roadway is currently in poor condition, with extensive rutting and transverse and longitudinal cracking. The distress is most pronounced in the eastbound lane near the intersection with Coppell Road, especially in the vicinity of the sewer manholes, where the pavement has settled and the manholes protrude above the surrounding pavement surface. The existing roadway will be milled and an overlay will be placed around December 2003. Complete reconstruction of the roadway is expected to occur around June 2005. 8.2 TRENCH BACKI✓II_L EVALUATION PBT's geotechnical report concluded that the pavement distress was most likely due inadequate compaction of the sewer trench backfill. The backfill has now been in -place over seven years and the upper three feet of the backfill has been removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. The majority of the backfill settlement may have occurred and additional future settlement of the backfill is not expected to be as pronounced as the settlement that has occurred to date. The roadway reconstruction will not occur for about 1 1 /2 years, which will allow additional settlement of the trench backfill to occur prior to reconstruction. The pavement will be overlaid with asphalt in December 2003 or January 2004. This overlay will provide an opportunity to observe if settlement is still occurring along the trench and around manholes. 8,3 BACKFILL STABILIZATION Although it is expected that the majority of the trench backfill settlement has already occurred, there is a risk of additional future settlement that could impact the riding surface of the new pavement. The least risk alternative would be to remove the backfill in its entirety i i 10 TERRA-M M,M and to replace it with properly compacted fill in the trench and flowable backfill around the manholes. A second alternative would be to monitor the performance of the proposed pavement overlay. If settlement related distress is not observed in the overlay prior to road reconstruction, the risk of future trench settlement could be considered low and the new pavement could be constructed without special pavement subgrade treatment or pavement design. If settlement related distress is observed, the pavement could be designed to bridge over the trench backfill in lieu of complete removal of the fill. Treatment of the backfill would not be required and the pavement would be designed to accommodate the trench backfill settlement. With this alternative, the pavement should be designed to span over a 6 -foot wide void. 9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN A pavement analysis was performed using the Pavement Analysis Software (Version 5.0) of the American Concrete Pavement Association. The computer program is based on the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A description of the pavement design methodology and recommended pavement sections is provided in the following sections. 9.2 DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADING The traffic counts taken at several locations and dates for Bethel Road and Coppell Road were provided by Freese and Nichols for use in estimating the traffic loading for pavement design. A summary of this data is provided in Appendix C. On the basis of this data, a design traffic loading 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd) was used for the design of Bethel Road and a design traffic loading of 5,400 vpd was used for the design of Coppell Road. The design lane traffic loading was calculated using a directional distribution factor of 0.5 and a lane distribution factor of 1.0. The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) for the Bethel Road design lane was 3,800 vpd and the ADT for the Coppell Road design lane was 2,700 vpd. It was assumed that the ADT was an average for the life of the pavement and that it included any anticipated traffic growth. The design period for the pavement was 20 years. DE03 -155 PAGE 11 TERRA -MAR Information regarding the frequency, type and distribution of the truck traffic was not available. Pavement designs were therefore determined for 5 percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent truck traffic. A truck factor of 1.9 was used to calculate the number of equivalent 18- kip single axle loads (ESALs) for the truck traffic, The project traffic engineer should review the assumed traffic loading to confirm that it is representative of the anticipated loading. 9.3 PAVEMENT SECTIONS Tables 3 and 4 present the minimum recommended pavement sections for Portland Cement Concrete pavement for the assumed traffic loading conditions. TABL 3 — BETHEL ROAD PAVEMENT SECTIONS TABLE 4 — COPPELL ROAD PAVEMENT SE Percent Truck Portland Lime Stabilized Percent Truck ESAL's Cement Portland Lime Stabilized Section I Traffic Concrete Subgrade Thickness 5 percent 2,650,000 8,0 inches 6 inches 13 inches 10 percent 5,280,000 8.5 inches 6 inches 14 inches 15 percent 7,920,000 9.0 inches 6 inches 15 inches TABLE 4 — COPPELL ROAD PAVEMENT SE Percent Truck Portland Lime Stabilized Traffic ESAL's Cement Subgrade .Section Thickness Goncent 5 percent 1,880,000 7.5 inches 6 inches 12.5 inches I 10 percent 3,750,000 8.0 inches 6 inches 13.5 inches 15 percent 5,620,000 8.5 inches 6 inches 14.0 inches 9.4 SULFATE INDUCED HEAVE CONSIDERATIONS Sulfate concentration tests were performed to evaluate whether or not a serious risk exists for lime /sulfate induced heave. The test results indicated a soluble sulfate concentration of 545 mg /kg for one of the samples tested. Sulfates were not detected in the other three samples tested. The concentrations of soluble sulfates in the soil samples are well below the DE03 -155 PAGE 12 TERRA-MAR threshold levels generally considered problematic. Therefore, the potential for sulfate induced heave is considered to be low. 9,5 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE The concrete should be designed to have a minimum 28 -day flexural strength of 650 psi, determined by the third -point loading method (ASTM C -78). All concrete should be air entrained with a total air content of 4 to 6 percent. The use of air entraining admixtures should conform to ASTM Designation C -260. Slip formed concrete should have a maximum slump of 2 inches. Hand placed concrete should have a maximum slump of 4 inches if no plastizer is used. Slip formed concrete is preferred. The concrete surface should be protected with a curing compound or moisture blankets as soon as possible after the concrete is placed. The concrete should meet the requirements of the North Central Texas Council of Governments current "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ". 9.6 PAVEMENT JOINTS Proper joint placement and design is critical to pavement performance. Contraction joints should typically be placed at 15 feet on- center. The contraction joints should be saw cut as soon as possible after placement of concrete but before shrinkage cracks occur. The concrete should be saw cut at least 3/8 inch wide and 2 inches deep. Isolation joints should be placed at drainage in -lets, manholes, T- and unsymmetrical intersections, and anywhere differential movement between the pavement and a structure may take place. They should also be placed in areas where new pavement will abut existing pavement. The isolation joints should be %2 inch wide. Redwood expansion board should be used to fill the isolation joints. Steel dowels should be used for load transfer at all joints transverse to traffic. The dowels should be 18- inches long, placed 12 inches on- center, and located mid - height in the slab. The dowel diameter should equal the slab thickness multiplied by 1/8 inch. Dowels are not required for load transfer for isolation joints at drainage inlets and manholes. Where dowels are used for load transfer at isolation joints, each dowel should be equipped with a closed - end expansion cap to allow the joint to expand and contract. The cap should cover at least 2 inches of the dowel and should have a stop to hold the end of the cap at least 0.75 inch away DE03 -155 PAGE 13 TERRA -MAR from the end of the dowel bar. The cap should fit the dowel tightly and should be watertight. The half of the dowel with the capped end should be coated to permit horizontal movement. All joints should be properly cleaned and sealed as soon as possible to.avoid the infiltration of water, small gravel, and other debris. Either cold- poured or hot - poured sealing material may be used. Backing should be provided to hold the isolation joint sealant in place. Manufacturers' instructions for mixing and installing the joint materials should be followed. It is recommended that, as a minimum, the reinforcement steel consist of No. 3 bars conforming to ASTM Designation A -615. The reinforcing steel should be placed on chairs and spaced at a maximum of 24 inches on- center in each direction. 9.7 LIME STABILIZATION The pavement subgrade should be lime stabilized in accordance with Item 4.6 of the North Central Texas Standard Specifications for Public Works and Construction (NTCCOG). Based upon the results of the lime /PI series tests, a minimum lime application rate of 6 percent by dry weight (27 pounds per square yard per 6 -Inch depth) is recommended for lime stabilization. 9.8 GENERAL. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Differential heave of the pavement could occur in areas where the pavement section is underlain by active clays. The pavement service life may be reduced due to water infiltration into the subgrade soils through heave induced cracks in the pavement section. A regular maintenance program to seal pavement cracks will help prolong the service life of the pavement. The life of the pavement can be increased with proper drainage, The site should be graded to provide positive drainage away from the pavement. Water must not be permitted to pond adjacent to the pavement during or after construction. Backfill material capable of holding water behind the curb should not be permitted. Flat pavement grades should be avoided. 10.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Pavement subgrade preparation should consist of the removing existing pavements, topsoil, vegetation, and any other deleterious materials. Following removal operations the subgrade DE03 -155 PAGE 14 TERRA -MAR should be proofrolled under the observation of the project geotechnical engineer or a representative of the engineer. Proofrolling can generally be accomplished using a heavy (25 ton or greater total weight) rubber -tired piece of construction equipment, such as a loaded tandem -axie dump truck, making several passes over the areas, Soft or compressible zones should be removed to a firm subgrade and replaced with compacted fill. The overexcavation backfill should consist of on -site clays compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) at a moisture content ranging between —2 and +3 percentage points of optimum, The site can then be raise to the planned finish grade with compacted fill. The fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density at a moisture content ranging between —2 and +3 percentage points of optimum. Imported fill should consist of sandy clay to clayey sand having a maximum liquid limit of 50 and a maximum PI of 30. Imported fill that will be lime stabilized should be tested for sulfates in accordance with TxDOT test method 620J. 11,0 LIMITATIONS The professional services, which have been performed, the findings obtained, and the recommendations prepared were accomplished in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices, The possibility always exists that the subsurface conditions at the site may vary from those encountered in the borings, If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from what we have obtained from test borings, we should be notified immediately so that the effects of these conditions on design and construction can be addressed, The recommendations given in this report were prepared exclusively for the use of the City of Coppell, Freese and Nichols, Inc., 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. Further, subsurface conditions can change with passage of time. Recommendations contained herein are not considered applicable for an extended period after the completion date of this report. It is recommended our office be contacted for a review of the contents of this report for construction commencing more than one year after completion of this report. DE03 -155 PAGE 15 TER -lV AK All contractors referring to this geotechnical report should draw their own conclusions regarding excavations, trafficability etc. for bidding purposes. Terra -Mar, Inc, is not responsible for conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data. This report is intended to guide preparation of project specifications and should not be used as a substitute for the project specifications. Recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of information provided by the Client about characteristics of the project. If the Client notes any deviation from the facts about characteristics of the project, our office should be contacted immediately since this may materially alter the recommendations. All recommendations are contingent upon the opportunity of Terra -Mar, Inc. to observe pavement construction and earthwork operations. If parties other than Terra -Mar, Inc, are engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project, We will retain the samples acquired for this project for a period of 30 days subsequent to the submittal date printed on the report. After this period, the samples will be discarded unless otherwise notified by the owner in writing. Professional services provided in this geotechnical exploration have been performed, findings obtained, and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The scope of services provided herein does not include an environmental assessment of the site or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous materials in the soil, surface water, and groundwater. The reproduction of this report or any part thereof, in plans or other documents supplied to persons other than the owner, should bear language indicating that the information contained therein is for foundation design purposes of the bridge and retaining walls. All contractors referring to this geotechnical report should draw their own conclusions regarding excavations, trafficabliity, etc., for bidding purposes. Terra -Mar is not responsible for conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on these data. DE03 -155 PAGE 16 TERRA -MAR DE03.155 TERRA-MAR � ROM E= C r ■■ ea n �� L■� ���i' �� �# �� �/ , �� � �r ON 1 � � � Wei ttwl� ► � C+'1C�1 Cll _ l�7 7 r • R/ e (Til I 4 Ar C /) Lo z 6 J33HS 33S 0 00+IT VIS 3WHOW4 LL 0 4 2 CL A 0 d NOIN30 w a 0 CL 0 z fs '15 0 Q N VIVA Ica 'i —T "i 1 9111 00+tg VIS 3NIIHOlVI4 U MHS M.q 00+9E YIS 3NIIHOTVW L n3HS 25S E f b 3t h h 180dMNA VT( 00+it VJS 3NIIHOM -JT k2 N VIL ��X tff Li .j J33HS T3s oo+9 vis mnHbiv}i f b 3t h h 180dMNA VT( 00+it VJS 3NIIHOM -JT k2 N VIL ��X tff Li .j uj Lp 0 A Kz rp z a W e pay z � a 00 +0 VV SHWIHa1VW V a - -- - - -- 0 � � ii 13r 7 .I � u D R h f ' I �o ° z ' a I' 1 9 �f n I I 29 111j11 � � m ° �� � III III ,. I ` 3 P n I e -�pr w ��`�•• - g I s OO +Lip V15 3NnHoM Ot 13AHS 33S i O � z ca 3 � QLYi, W L J LOG OF BORING B -1 Project: Bethelt Road Reconstruction - City of Coppelt, Texas Project No.: DE03 -155 Date: 11/03/03 Elev.: 497± Location: Station: 52+80 Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was 4.0' Depth to caving when checked: was: ELEVATION! SOILSYMBOLS MG LL PL Fl -200 DD P.PEN UNOON Strain DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION % % / % Pcf tsf tsf % feet & FIELD TEST DATA t a FILL -Brown & fan a CE AY (CL) t 4 18l6.0D" FILL - Tan clayey SAND {SC} 20!6.00" 50/6.00" 5 - seepage @ 4' 12!6.00" 20!6.00" 22!6.00" _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1als.00, Tan SAND (SP) ............,. — _...... .. ... .... . . 15r5AD" 1sr6.aa" aa5 15 480 20 475 25 470 30 465 35 460 J Notes: Completion Depth: 10 1 ..0 . ' TERRA -MARL INC FIGURE 51 LOG OF BORING B-2 Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-156 Date: 11106/03 Elev.. 603± Location: Station* 27+90 Depth to water at completion of boring; Dry Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry Depth to caving when checked: was: 5LWATIONI LL PL SOILSYMBOLS =R Mc Strain 5 T SYMBOL$ DESCRIPTION % % (feet) EST DATA % P Cf tsf t3f -200 DD RPEN UNCON St —0 -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Hard dark brown sandy.CLAY (CL) 4,5+ 17 59 20 39 4.5+ 4.5+ 4.6+ 4.6+ -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- - - Hard gray & brown sandy CLAY w/ calcareous nodules & iron stains (CL) 4.6+ 4,4+ I Notes: Completion Depth. 10.0' TERRA -MAR. INC, FIGURE 486-- -20 480- 26 475-- 470-- — 35 I Notes: Completion Depth. 10.0' TERRA -MAR. INC, FIGURE LOG OF BORING B -3 Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03 -155 Date: 11105/03 Elev.: 513x- Location: Station 4+60 Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry Depth to caving when checked: was: ELEVATION! SOIL SYMBOLS MC LL PL -200 DO P.PEN UNCON Strain DEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLS DES CRIPTION arq % % P] % pct tsf t-0 feet & FIELD TEST DATA — — 4.5 ' .... ... Hard dark gray sand CLAY wJ some organics (CL) � ..... 13 46 17 28 4.5+ 4.5 540 4.5 4.6 5 .:.. -. Hard ra &or " ..... .. ...... .. ... .... .. �g y ,li light gray y orange sandy CLAY (CL) 4.5 5115 Very stiff orange & tan sandy CALY w/ calcareous nodules & iron stains (CL) 375 40 Sao S5 495 20 490 25 465 36 Notes: Completion Depth: 100 TERRA - MAR. INC. FIGURE 71 LOG .OF BORING B -4 Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppeil, Texas Project No.: DE03 -155 Date: 11/05/03 Elev.: 512± Location: Station: 7+75 Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry Depth to caving when checked: was: ELEVATION! SOIL SYMBOLS DEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLS DESCRIPTION MC LL PL PI -200 DD P.PEN UNCON Strain feet 8 FIELD TEST DATA % % % % pcf tsf tsf a Very stiff gray & reddish brown sandy CLAY (CL) 616.00" 14 26 14 12 4.5 510 916.00" .Y r.. _.... ...... ,_.._._..._.. _... .. ... .... . . sis:oQ' Very stiff gray, light gray &orange sand CLAY (CL) 6J6.oa^ 1016.00" toJ6.00' 5 1216.00" 1516.00'• Light gray, tan & orange sandy CLAY (CL) 506 i0 Sao 15 4se 20 490- zs 486 480 35 475 Notes: Completion Depth: 10.0' FIGURE 8 TERRA -MAR. INC. LOG OF BORING B -5 Project: Bethel] Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03 -155 Date: 11/05/03 Elev.: 494± Location: Station;.42 +10 Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry Depth to caving when checked: was: ELEVATIONI DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION MC % LL % PL % PI .20a °h DD pcf P.PEN tsf UNCON tsf Straits feet 8 FIELD TEST DATA FILL - Very stiff to hard dark brown CLAY w{ calcareous 4.6 +' nodules & limestone fragments (CH) 42 16 26 4.5+ 11 102.6 4.5+ 3.7 2.9 4.6+ 494 Hard brownish gray & tan CLAY w1 gravel & calcareous 10 41 16 25 10 ?.5 '4.5+ "9.6" '3.8 5 nodules (CH) 4.5+ Hard brownish gray sandy CLAY blocky, wl calcareous nodules & gravel (CL) 4.5+ Hard light gray sandy CLAY wl iron stains & calcareous 4.5+ a3e depositsLCL� _ _ _ _ _ _..r 4,6 +' 10 Hard tan CLAY w/ calcareous deposits & gravel (CH) 16 41 15 26 4,6+ _..._..____.— ________. —_ Brown cemented SAND ............._...... . .... .. ................... ................. -----__.-------------- Dark gray weathered SHALE dso _ a75 20 5012.00" ... — ..... — ..� ............._..,....,..,... _ _ 5012.001 Gray cemented SAND wf interbedded weathered shale layer -1 tl� � Da gr _�. ay S � HALE __ ___-_ -___- ..___ .... I . -I ..... I ...... f "] 470 25 5012.00" 465 =_ 3Q — Boli.00" 460 35 50!1.00" son.o5" Notes: Complet Depth: 50.0' TERRA -MAR. INC, 17 1 1 1 1 1113.21 4.0 1 20.0 1 2.8 ; 16 1 I 1 1 1113.11 1 32.9 1 2.4 I FIGURE 9 I I LOG OF BORING B•5 Project: Bethel! Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, 'texas Project No.: DE03 -155 ELEVATIONI SOIL SYMBOLS DEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLS DESCRIPTION % LL % P1 •200 DD P.PEN UNCON Strain feet & FIELD TEST DATA % % % pcf tsf tsf 1. Dark gray SHALE 455 40 = =- 6otl.oa^ —;: 5010.50" ami mi Gm� I 40 - slickensided, w/ trace pyrite @ 44' df, 5010.75" 17 1 1 1 1 1109.61 1 32,9 1 2.7 Q 445 50 - -- 5fl10,50" 5010,60 940. 55 485 60 70 420 i6 I Notes: Completion Depth: 50.0' TERRA -MAR. INC FIGURE 'I O LOG OF BORING B -6 Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03 -155 Date: 1//03103 Elev.: 500± Location: Station'. 44, 00, Depth to water at completion of boring: Depth to water when checked: was: Depth to caving when checked: was: ELEVATlONI SOIL SYMBOLS MO LL PL 1-20D I DO PREN t1NCON Strain pEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLS DESCRIPTION % % % pl % pcf taf W % icet & FIELD TEST OATA 500-0 --- ____.....__...._._.._.__ —__ ... .. .. .. .... ... 3" Asphaltic Concrete, 18" Road Base FILL » Stiff to very stiff brown & tan CLAY w1 shale & 4.6+ 1.3 10.2 limestone fragments, asphalt, fine gravel & some root 2.5 fibers (CH) 15 215 495 5 15 117.8 4.5+ 112 10.8 2.76 3.5 3,6 2.5 485-15 20 30 465 I Notes: Completion Depth: 55.0" — — Stiff tan & gray sandy CLAY (CL) — — — 1.5 1s 116.3 67A 2.0 Dark gray weathered SHALE r . I . ; as . I I [ — w......,...._. _ _ _ ..... — -- — -- .,.._ -.,. _ _ _ — Dark gray SHALE w1 fossil seams 18 16 TERRA -MAR, INC, 7.3 35:2 2.1 s.6 44.4 2.7 FIGURE 11 LOG OF BORING B-6 Project: Bethel[ Road Reconstruction - City of Copped, Texas Project No.: DE03-155 ELEVATION1 DSPTH SOIL SYMBOLS OLS DESCRIPTION Mc LL PL PI -200 Dr) Ppr;N UNCON Strain feet & FlSLD TEST D ATA % % % pef tsf tsf % Dark gray SHALE wl fossil seams 460--40 455--45 16 119.0 26.9 2.2 450--50 WOO` 445--55 Sid 6010,76" 5010.75" 440--60 435--65 430- - 70 425--75 Notes: Completion Depth; 66.0' FIGURE 12 TEE RA -MAR. 1 NG- Symbol Description Strata symbols Fill sandy SAND clayey SAND CLAY SAND, cemented - SHADE, a a weathered SHADE Asphaltic Paving KEY TO LOG TERMS & SYMBOLS Symbol Description misc. Symbols -— water table when checked I\ Boring continues Soil Sam„ Thin Wall Shelby Tube Standard Penetration Test THD Cone Penetration Test Rook Core Notes: 1. Exploratory 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 logs. Abbreviations used are: DD = natural dry density (pcf) LL = liquid limit (%) MC = natural moisture content M PI, = plastic limit (%) Uncon.= unconfined compression (ts£) PI = plasticity index P.Pen.= hand penetrometer (tsf) -200 = percent passing #200 4. Rock Cores REC = (Recovery) sum of core sample recovered divided by length of run, expressed as percentage. RQD = (Rock Quality Designation) sum of core sample recovery 4" or greater in length divided by the run, expressed as percentage. FIGURE 13� TERRA -MAR, INC. DE03 »155 TERRA-MAR 45 40 35 30 a� c 25 a U 4- 20 0 0 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lime Additive ( %) 30 25 20 a� c 15 G a:. U7 t0 �- 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 Soil Description: Dark Brown Clay with calcareous nodules and limestone fragments Sample No.: Boring B-5; 1 to 2 feet 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lime Additive ( %) NOV, 14. 2003 3: 12PM ANA-LAB NO, 2/5 P, 2/2 North Texas Region 1 601 E, Lamar Blvd, 4 1 15 -- Arlington, TX 76011 817/261-6404 FAX 817/261 -7416 m GIN '�v I a MRS com ' " fivIORLASID 11/14/2003 .3 9233, DE03 /2003 229665 On P I arameter soluble oulvixtQ Total Solids 87'. 11/11/2003 !Crib "139232 DE03-155 83/1-2 Results Units EQtj Analyzed ov paralnater ND 11/13/2003 PGO Soluble Sulfate ga.1 11/11/2003 TDD Total Salida i39233 DM03-155 B4 /1-2 o71 11/11/2002 Parameter F.e sulta malyzed By Soluble Sulfate NI) 224 ;LI/13/2003 FCO Total 001 ds 0.1 11/11/2003 TDD 0 Corporate Shipping' 2600 Dudley Rd., Kilgore, TX 76682 — HPIMMarla-lab-com m I m is a A Corporate Melling: PA Box 9000, Kilgore, TX 75663-90I)b — 00319844551 — FAX 003/9844914 NWI Al!: , ANA-LAB NO, 361 P. 2 North Texas Region 1601 E. Lamar Blvd, # 116 -- Arlington, TX 76011 tERS 817/281-6404 W8171261-7115 220"S Parameter Results aoluble sulgate S4� Analysed ziy 207 11 /13/2003 VGO Total sozidti 96.7 0.1 11/1,1 /2003 TDD 1N XUOOA t f Corporate Shipping: 2600 Dudley Rd,, Kilgore, TX 7i4p62 -- hUpWwww.ana-jeb,com Corporate Mailing: p.o, Box q000, Kligoro, TX 75663 9031004 — FAX 503/06M6914 NE X02008 MEMB51i M ©E03 -155 TERRA -MAR r CD L IJt Le. 0 CL O .0 X M LLt , O -r- O � c o P-t a N © N y �+ [7 f X pr t - CA x L � Gi m O , ri C7 m 4 a ,pd do uo}uaQ pzj autl41 Salvo` v • ° PntB o m 0 a m a Q -° co rn Ra IS )JDd o a L -° 0 a paaa Iladdo0 n a v n Pao] Ila4 PDO-d Iladdd:D (0� +0£ �S)S -8 ` p d a s_ $ C m ju (00 +9£ "p4S),' o , ao ° c a� a a - 0 tl / DMM IDd podaaa.4 v- O % U) +Q 1 p ° "rC Sam— t7 0 k Q Qrn ~ Co to -u-•I IDAoa a . .0 0 r CD L IJt Le. 0 CL O .0 X M LLt , O -r- O mi oo+gz - -is 00+09 luls 0 0 O Rf O O j Patton, Burke & Thomason I"igure 3 LOG OF BORING. NO. B -1 (St.49 + 25) � CLIENT; City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas JOB NAME: Seweriine Sackfill (Bethel Rd.- Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME -75 DRIWN CONTRACTOR: CoreT'est LOGGED BY: MC SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED:. 12111197 GROUND ELEVATION: 509.5' JOB NO,: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHODIS)r Solid Auger GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater o encountered during drilling. � � m b4 SAMPLE TYPE z in y tt a ST Shelby Tuba RC Rack Care SS Spit stoat CC Cutdngs TC THD Cone CS Ceifomip Spoons, . m O a A 5 r , Vf SA ..,+ U4 N z t n u a GEaTECI INICAL DESCRIPTION N 4' asphatt; 2 base mater FILL - CLAY, with sand and gravel, stiff to very stiff, moist, S1 0.0 -2.0 ST P=1-76 '18 107, 71 ° r dark brown, tight brown and gray O 6 - }gown and light brown 0.5'10 4' r a $2 2.0 -4.0 ST P =2.25 42 12 30 v� r ° -gray and light brown below 4' O 5 S3 4.0 - 6.0 ST P=2.0 16 49 6 S4 6,0 $.Q ST P =1.5 20 103 • w s Boring terminated at a depth of 8-faet " Elevation and station slues obtained from the plan prepared by H3R Engirieering, Inc. dated May 1995. 10 7& N » STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE RF- MARKS: Borehole bac &flied with Soil cuttings and FIELD T • TFSD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE with as phalt . P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE p TEST R � aOC , Q E o VERY l7 SIGONA710 LOG OF BORING NO. B -2 (St.39 + 0®)* CLIENT: •City of Coppell LOCATION: Cappel(, Texas Jog NAME: Sewedine Backfill (Bethel did.- Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME -75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR. CareTest LOGGED BY: MC SURFACE CONDITIONS, Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97 GROUND ELEVATION: 60S.5'i JOB NO-- 1345 PAGE 'I OF 7 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRIWNG METHOO(S); Si Auger GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: N gioundwato ig a encountered Burg drilling. SAMPLE T"E z y > V U x ST Shelby Tuba RC Rock Cane SS CPU Sperm y a ai4" is a ZI ai W «i CT Cuffinps TO THD Gann CS Csgromle Spoon GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION N 4.5" asphalt.; 4` base materia FILL - CLAY, with sand, medium stiff to stiff, moist+ dark 7 : brown and brown S1 1.0 -2.0 ST P =1.o 21 104 light n below 2' brow • 52 • 210 -4.0 ST P =3.0 17 107 r e • - with wood pieces at 2' to 4' ° a - wood pieces encountered at 4' to B' • 5 S3 4.0 -6.0 ST P =1.0 �. • t t p S4 6.0 -8.0 ST 17 e • e • oring terminated at a dept!~ of 8•feet " Elevation and station values obtained from the plan prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995 10 15 N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS Borehole backfilled with sail cuttings and FIELD T • "ll CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE P atobed with asphalt. - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE TEST PERCENTAGE OF ROC PO riD DESIGNATION rigors - Patton, Burke & Thompson LOG OF BORING NO. B- 3.(St.38+05)* CLIENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: CoppeH, Taxes JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethal Rd.- Grapevine Creak to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME -76 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoroTest LOGGED M. MC SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197 GROUND ELEVATION: 505+ JOB NO.: 1346 PAGE 1 OF 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): U14 Auger GROUNDWATM INFORMATION: No groundwater o an0ountered during drnng. .a W w SAMPLE TYPE O Z w z q G Z rG ST Shelby Tube RC Rock Core SS $pat Spoon s 1- 5 t c ° m m O 8 G �+ ° CT Cuttingr TC THD Cone' GS CnaramlR spoon GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIP'T'ION w 0�. W w to a EPEM v i4" asphalt~ 2 to 3" base material a FILL - CLAY, stiff to very stiff, moist to very moist, dark $1 1.0 -2.0 ST P =1.6 24 99 60 17 33 «'• brown and light brown + + -with calcareous deposits 14 $2 2.0.4.0 ST P =2.76 • «« with scattered gravel below V r « 6 S3 4.0 -6.0 ST P =3.26 19 101 +• • a « « « S4 6.0.8.0 ST P =2.75 20 103 «" v e Boring terminated at a depth of 6-feet « Elevation and station values obtained from the plan prepared by H R Engineering. Inc. dated May 1996, i4 115 N • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE ASMARKSt Borehole backfilled with so�ll cuttings and FIELD T • TND CONE pENeMTIoN RESISTANCE P - POCKET PENETRATIO RESISTANCE etched with halt. P asphalt. TEST RECOVERY TY DESIGNATION ROD - ROCK QUALITY Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure - 5 LOG OF BORING NO. B - (St. 36 +00) * FJOB c.'�'NT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas TAMS: Sewertine Backf€ll (Bethel Rd.- Grapevine Cr9ek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME 75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 42111187 GROUND ELEVATION: 503* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE l OF 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S),: Solid Auger 9 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION No groundwater o encountered during drilling. $AMPLE TYPE w t-i 'U a ST Shelby Tuba Re Rook Corr ss Spit Spoon Use C k• E CT Cattings Tc THD Cana CS Cn&famla 8pnan GECITEGElN1CAL DESCRIPTION a m�f7.O a S W h a rt 4" asphalt; 2" base materiat • FILL - CLAY. with sand and scattered gravel, very stiff, ®• moist, dark brown to light brown S1 1.0.2.0 ST P =2.75 e ® a a tight brown, with calcareous deposits below 2' a� k , S2 2,0 -4.0 ST P=3.6 18 107 ' a • • with scattered gravel below 4' a 5 53 4.0 -6.0 5T P =3.5 16 101 ►� a a - gravelly below 6' • r S4 6.0 -S.O ST P =3.0 18 a a Sar ng terminated at a epth ET-8-feet Elevation and station values obtained from the plan prepared by HDR Engineenrig, Inc. dated May 1855. 1O 35 N - STANDARD PEN TEST RnWANCF REMARKS; Borehole ba~kfiiled with seta cuttings and F151 D P POCKEC' PENES Ont ESISTANCECE patched with asphalt. TEST R - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY ROD - ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION Patton, & Thompson ,11— LOG OF BORING N®. B -5 (St. 30+30) i I: I z i CLIENT. City of CappeIl I LOCATION: Coppeli, Texas JOB INAME' SawOrline 1380kfill (Bethel Rd-- Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME -75 ' DRILLING CONTRACTOR. CoraTest LOGGED BY. IVIC SURFACE comDl noNs: Asphalt DATE DRILLED. /2/11197 x JOB NO.: 1345 PACE 7 OF 1 . GROUND I~I.EVAT FIELD DATA 5Q5 LABORATORY DATA DRILLING ME ifiDD(S1: Solid Auger e- GRoUmDwATSR INFORMATION. No groundwater a encountered during drilling. > �� w w ; zi � SAiV3PLE TYPE ' lu � � � � � W v 0 0 z ST Shelby Tubs RC Rack Core SS Spat Spoon 0 6 Cr Cuttings TC TND Cana C5 CatHorrita Spann . GEOTEGHNICAL DESCRIPTION a to m ra N zaictc a + a a rn asphalt FEU. -CLAY, medium stiff to stiff, Iight brown, brown - �� • S1 1.0 -2.0 ST P =1.5 18 103 39 13 26 59 o -with scattered gravel V to 2' P 6 - S2 2.0 -4.0 ST P =1.0 19 a M ♦ ♦ p 0 - a P• a - 5 S3 4.0 -6.0 ST P =0.75 23 100 r♦ P V S4 6.0 -8.0 ST F=2.0 22 107 • • hard below 8' S5 8A -10.0 ST P -4.0 22 97 ♦♦ !p s ♦ 1Q ♦ r SB 10.0-12.0 ST P—-0 19 110 ♦ light brown sand below 11' r Patton, Burke & Thompson .i LOG OF BORING N®. B -6 (St.25 + 2.•7) CLIENT: Clty of Coppmll LOCATION: Goppell, Texas Jab NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grap evine Crack to Royals RIG TYPE: OME -75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR. CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC SURFACE CONDITIONS Asphalt DATE DRiLLEDi 12111/97 GROUND ELEVATION: 506.6* JOB N O.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): solid Auger a°- GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater p encountered during drilling. in m SAMPLE TYPE SS Slit Spo" U zz z w min k„ 7 r�oauu: r v ST Shelby Tube RC Rack Cara Spann pr a O O a .a w W w p =a j 1~ F ► CT Cuttings TC 1 i ID Conn CS Ca9EnnniM GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION y J ti $' asphalt o HLL - CLAY, with sand, very stiff, dry to Slightly moist, light brown and dark brawn S1 1.0 -2.0 ST P =3.0 15 115 ' a e G. A S2 2.0 -4.0 ST p -3.0 16 114 � • a e • ° SAND, siity, fine grain, Bose, moist, light brown and brown . i S3 4.0 -6.0 ST 9 e • . R ' o & -with clay deposits S4 7.0-8.6 SS 14=3 12 • • e S5 8.5 -10.0 SS N =2 9 e • • ;i Patton, Burke 9L Thompson ,Agora - a LOG OF BORING N®. B -7 (St. 15 4- 90) � WENT. City of Coppell LOCATION: CoppeA, Texas JOB NAME: Sawerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.- Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE- OME• -76 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreT dst LOGGED BY: MC SUPX-ACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED-. -12111/97 GROUND ELEVATION: 497.5 JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 7 FIELD. DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHgl3 {5): Solid Auger GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater fay p encountered during dr"rlting. a tu $ g v SAMPLE TYPE z y y ST Shelby Tabu RC Rack Cara SC Spot Spann a p 0 a a r v ' j O l= r CT Cuttlnp TC THD Coos CS Wfamlm Spoon �m�pa[a O r n ° 4f vF z Yt GEOTECHNICAL. DESCRIPTIM4 EP rztt w n v°r s' asphalt ° FILL-CLAY, sandy, with gravel, medium stiff to very stiff, $1 0.5 -2.0 ST P =1.5 16 107 22 13 9 So ♦° a moist, light brown and gray e a m 0 a S2 2.0 -4,0 ST P =1.0 18 109 a° a ' a ° a -with ferrous stains below 4' o- 5 S3 4.0 -6,0 ST P =3.0 6 s e a a d , s ♦ S4 5.0 -8.0 ST P =4.0 15 108 ° e M ® Boring terminited at a depth or 8 -feet • Elevation and station values, obtained from the plan prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1996- 10 15 N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole backfilied with aoi cuttings and r T - THD CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE • P - POCKET PENETRATION RESISTANCE patched with asphalt. TEST li - PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY. Rao • ROCK QUA.ITY DESIGNATION r " " • a Patton. Burke & Thompson LOG OF BORING NO. B (St.11 +00) CLIENT: City of CoPpell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas JOB NAME: Sowerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.- Grapevine Crgek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME -76 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 9211 1197 GROUND ELEVATION: 501.4* JOB NO 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S). Solid Auger �9 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION, No groundwater encountered during drilling. �- 5 SAMPLE TYPE liar& Cott SS Spit Spann 1 .4 O Q ¢ ST Shalhy Tuba RC =a. 0 , A G ttl Cr Cuttings TCTH{) Cant CS CnEtotrdaSpoon GEOTECHNECAE DESCRIPTION r ° t m o a Y a S v, Ei= fi its a ; li' asphalt: 2" base material • ist. b FILL - SAND, clayey, loose, morown and light brown r r , S1 1,0 -2.0 ST P =1.0 12 e ' S i i i� i i a W ST 12 26 •r p 0 • • "wrgh gravel b elow 4" i W ST p =1.0 23 Is I3 r ► t • 9 • W a • ST 11 W` • • W . ♦ ST 7 •• Patton, Burke & Thompson LOG OF BORING N®. B -9 (St.8+50) CLIENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppeil, Texas .JOB NAME: Sewedina Backfill (Bethel Rd.-G Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME -75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoraTest LOGGED BY: MC SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12111187 GROUND ELEVATION: 496* .1013 NO.: 1345 PAGE 1' OF 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DFttLLING METHOD(S). Solid Auger GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater encountered during drilling. SAMPLE TYPE n W m inrn C ; 0 ST SfiethY 7vhm RC Aoak Caro $S 5p9t Sp6on I� O a I p C F F vi .d CT UW.Um TC Tf{D Cone CS Caltratrdn Sprxm GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION W a O Q ltl n � �, � � w � � g 5" asphalt r FILL - SAND, claYeY, vary "SS to kwse, moist, brown and `. light brawn $1 0.5 x,11 SS N=S 12 0 P S2 2.(y -3.6 SS N =2 15 a ` . r r M a $3 4.0 -6.5 SS N =2 17 r er 5 • r S4 5.6-7.0 SS N =3 14 r . • P P 4 O r Boring terrninated at a depth o 8 -feet ' Etevation and station values obtained from the plan prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995- - 10 y 15 N - STANDARO PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS: Borehole 6ackiilied with sod cuttings and FIELD T • THD CONE K)OKE1' PENETRATION PENETRAi70N RESISTANCE RESISTANCE patched with asphalt. TEST P - F RD ROi7� R 4uA p 5iGNATION Figure- 11 Patton, Burke & Thompson LOG OF BORING NO. B -1® (St.27 + 00) CLIEN City of Coppell L Copped, Texas JOB NAME: Sowerdno Backr'dl (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME45 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED 0Y: MC SURFACE COINDITIONS: Concrete DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97 GROUND ELEVATION: NA JOB NO.- 1345 PAGE 1 OF I FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA D6iiWNG METHODIST: Solid Auger e GROUNDWATEn INFORMATION*. No groundwater * o encountered during drilling. F0 ro �' }}-- tu $ SAMPLE TYPE v y u s ST St,. Tuba PC dock Care SS Split Spoon ux 1 a "� n P r- y 4 CT Cutdngs TC THO Cane es cW64 fa Spoon GEOTECHTNICAL DESCRIPTION a` iA M a p tl .i � a._ _a. � °r S1 1 1.0 »2.5 1 SS 1 N =3 115 S21 2.5 -4.0 I SS I N=9 1 15 1 1 27112115 5 » S 31 4.0 -5.5 ISSI N =10 1 17 S41 5.5-7.o I S S I N = 4 115 S51 7.o -s.5 I Ss i N =7 117 10 —15 2i T concrete FILL - SAND, clayey to silty, very loose tc loose, moist, `a reddish brown to light brown and browns 24 `R a R, R s `R 6 44 ." s e R R 4 • 4 O s R a R Baring terminated at a depth of 10 feet " This boring located at Bethel School Drive. Patton, Bunke & Thompson j UNIFIED SOIL LASSIFI a 1 ION SYSTEM Figure 13 Patton, Burke & Thompson SYN) BOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISION GRAPH I L ETTER DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SAILS MORE THAN SO% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO, 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS 4 o,a n, o Gam WELL GRAVELS, GRAVEL. - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES 1) a 0 VD 10 �, 0" `�° 0- G.7' P FlOORCY- GRADED GRAVELS, Gi3 VEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES s a a '® - GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES GC C CLAY MDJURESG GRAVEL -SAND - MORE THAN 5096 OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO, 2 00 $1 EVE SIZE s SANER AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% CLEAN SANDS :. °•;,'': ;•<': : , : , ;•;.� +a,° WELL- GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY RI SANDS, LITTLE OR O FINES :"P r POORLY- GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY 5ANp,'LITTLE OR NO FINES � S St MIXTURES, SAND -SILT TY OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON "N0.4 SIEVE ,SANDS WITH F .' � Sc CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES R.OUR VLW OR CLAYEY FIBRE SANDS ORtiOCK # t CLAYEt' SILT$ VATK SLIM TT FLASFRT€Y FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND LESS THAN gp CLAYS y� �r�, C INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW T4 MEDIUM FLASTF 4iY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY 0I, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL, ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC $ILTY CLAYS OF LOW. PLASTICITY MORE THAN SO% OF MA'T'ERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN CLAYS 50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLA5TTCI i Y: FAT CLAYS . y� f if OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF. MEDIUM TO HIGH °LASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS " ? t A a PT . pEAT. HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH H {GH ORGANIC CONTENTS ASPHALT FILL, o a a t LIMESTONE SHALE SANDSTONE CONCRETE CHALK Figure 13 Patton, Burke & Thompson i40 ; ]Patton, Burke & Thompson 10555 Newkkrk Street Suite 530 Dallas, Texas 75220 435 _.,.. _,:.. .. _._ fi ..,; .., ...�....; ...:... = ..� .. ...... _ . CURVE NUMBER C -1 MAXIMUM DRY DE � P CF - _ ! OPTIMUM M.5 pRYWEIGHT 130 4�s _. -•-��- _ ..; � . ! ; ._.. -. .._ ..,. _ . �.... � .- .;....�- ....,._� Tom.}.....' 1 120 l .,r_ w ... _s I' „1T i •- _i... �...... 1t � _... � t L � 1,. -. - -. - i�:,..€ ,._ I 115 f tt 110”' LL 1 100 G1 46 ' 0 & 10 i5 20 25 30 36 MOISTURE CONTENT`, Sample Description CAMP t� ! Sa I e uQU € LIMIT (0.6',) PEASMITY INDEX Location GRAVEL � SAND % compaction Test Procedure MIN 11 698 SILT AND CLAY PBT JOB 1345 ompac. -rho' n Test Results F IGURE 14 22+25 0 +25 - 1 ( 0 7 3 +00 - q (77 6 +75 - 1 '1(9 j 7 +00 - `j 7 +25 - 1(2) 7 +50 - 1(2') 8 +00 - 1 t07' 8 +50 B -9, 4 (0 - 77 1 (17 9 +00 - 1 ( 3 7 11 +00 &8, 5 (0 -107 ` } 11 +50 - 1 (S7 11 +90 - 3 (2', 4'. 7) f l 12 +50 B-5, 8 (0 -12) » 15 +00 - 1 (10) 15 +25 - 1 ( 15+50 - 1 (3) 15 +75 - 1 (4) :15 +90 B -7, 4 (0 - 8) ` 16 +50 - 1 (49 i 17 +50 - 1 ( 19 +00 B-4, 4 (0 - 8) 4 (0'-. 2', 4', 5 7 19 +25 - 1 (CT 19 +50 ` 1 ( 20 +00 - 1 ( 20 +50 - 1 (8) 43 +00 3 1', 3' S 22 +0 w inn 22+25 22 +50 - 1 ( 22 +80 - q (77 23 +00 - 1 t 25+00 r - 25 +27 B-&, 5 (0 -10') - 27 +00 - 1 M 27 +50 - 1 ( 29 +00 - 1 (17 29 +25 - 1 ( 3 7 29 +50 - 1 ( 29 +75 - 1 ( 30 +00 r 3 (2', 4'. 7) 30 +30 B-5, 8 (0 -12) » 31 +00 - 1 (10) 31 +05 - 1 ( 31 +10 - IM 31 +15 - 1 (4) 31 +20 - 1 (2) 33 +75 _ 3 (1% 3' 57 34 +50 ^ " 1 (07 36 +00 B-4, 4 (0 - 8) 4 (0'-. 2', 4', 5 7 31+50 - 1 (CT 38 +05 39 +00 B-2, 4 (0 - 6) 4 (o V, 31, 6) 40 +50 - 1 (0) 43 +00 3 1', 3' S - u ra a tests on y not specs oa ly or the a s i =i Jab No. 1345 j7J i'�'hf1 Rl irk m 'I AN 43 +50 2 (0'*l 3) 44 +50 - (5) 45 +00 - - ( 45 +50 4 (8) 46 +00 - 4 (V% Z. 4', 6') 46 +50 - 1 ( 48 +00 _ 1 (07 49 +25 B -1, 4 (0 - 8) IM 49 +80 - 2 (0' * , 47 49 +75 - 1 (6) 5000 - 4 (2', 4', 6', 8) 54+00 53 +00 `► (1 % 3', 5', 71 53 +97 3 6 1 , 5', 7) 54 +00 - 1 M* 56 +05 - 1 (2) 58 +12 - IM 58 +17 1 (5) 58 +20 58 +30 58 +50 _ 5 (2', 4', 6', 8', 10) 62 +00 - 1 (1) 62 +15 - 1 (3) 62 +30 - 1 ( 62 +35 - 1 (7) 63 +00 - 4 (2', 4', 6`, 8) 63 +40 - 1 ( 63 +50 - 1 (4) 63 +75 - 1 ( 64 +00 - I( 69 +00 - 4 (V, 3 '. 5 '' 7) 73 +00 _ 30 3 m 02 -04-1996 04 Z 14PM FROM PATTON, BURKE & THOMPS ©N TO 9723043570 P.02 w PST MOD I OMC SAMPLE DA _ STA71ON (dG;Ah) A 916.7 11,4 fight brawn clayey SAND 1116196 04-25,3+00, 112$19$ 5+75 (0),7+00 (1) 216193 15 +2a (1), 15+50 (3), 16+50 (4),17+50 (6),19+00 B 115,7 14.8 light broom and light 316195 43 +00 (1', 3`, 5") gray sandy CLAY 3/14/96 36+•00 (0), 37 +50 (0'), 39+00 (0'), 40 +50 (0), 43+60 49+50 (0), 69+00 (V. 3 5 7) 6/28196 63 +40 (2), 63 +60 (4), 63.75 (69, 64 +00 (8) G 916,3 13.6 brawn sandy CLAY 1/25195 8+G0 (0) 216IVo 15+76(5) 2132196 22 +00 (1), 22 +25 (3'), 22 +50 (5'), 22 +30 (7'), 23+00 2/20/96 27 +00 (0'),27+50 (3) 2/271M 31+•00 (10'), 31 +05 (8), 81+10 (61, 31 +15 (4), 21+21 D 134,4 6.6 light brown End tan 1/23/96 5 +75 (0), 7+-00 (1) SANG 1125/SS 8+00 (0') 1/30/96 12 +50 (), 15+ ( -) E 1041 20.2 light gray and brown 21'+'196 19 +25(2'), 19-x-50 (4'), 204-$0 (6'), 2G+60 (8), 21 +00 CLAY 2/29195 33+•75 (1', 3', $) 3/44M 36+00 (2', 4', 6) 3112/96 58 +50 (2', 4`, 6', 8', 10) 4/3196 25 +00 (2', 4'), 30 +00 (2', 4) 5/171G6 43-50 (3), 44 +50 (5), 45 +50 (8) 5 5/23196 58+20 ) F 111.5 16.6 dark brown sandy CLAY 2122135 2900 (1), 29+25 (3), 29+50 (4), 29.75 (67, 30 +001 315196 39 +00 (1', 3 5) 316190$ 43 +00 (1', 3, 5') 3M96 45 +00 (2', 4', 6) 3/11196 60+-00 (2',4', 6', 8 , 53+00 (1', T, 5', 7) 3/14196 34 +560 (0), 45 +00 (0), (0�, 46 +1D (0'), 52 +50 54+00,(0) 6/23/o 56 +05 (2'), 58 +12 (3'), 68+17 (5), 58+'30 (9) 5/24195 62 +00 (1), 62 +15 (3'), 62 +35 (7) G 101.4 24.8 dark brawn CLAY 3113M 63 +00 (2', 4', 6', 8) 3195/95 7Z+00.(I', 3', 5) 5120/90 49+25 (2'), 49+50 (49, 49+75 (8), 50 +00 (31 512119 53 +97 (3 5 7) 5fM96 Bethel Roan (Gmpevine Cmek W Royal LAM) 1340 CO 1I> 'togas TOTAL. P.02