Sales Tax 10C-SY110725BELT LINE ROAD
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION
I -635 to Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Texas
GME Project No. 11.04.0045
Prepared for:
City of Coppell
255 E. Parkway Boulevard
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Attention: Mr. George Marshall, P.E.
July 25, 2011
GM E Consulting ervices Inc. g c
Geotechnical. Materials and Environmental Engineering
2530 Electronic Lane 214.351.5633
Suite 710 FAX 214.351.56$4
Dallas. Texas 75220 www grneconSUILCom
July 25, 2011
City of Coppell
255 E. Parkway Boulevard
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, "Texas 75019
Attention: Mr. George Marshall, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Subject: BELT DINE ROAD
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION
I -635 to Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Texas
GME Project No. 1 1.04.0045
Dear Mr. Marshall:
GME Consulting Services, Inc. (GME) has completed the authorized pavement im esti(galion
at the above referenced project. The attached report briefly reviews our understandin— of the
project, presents our exploration procedures, describes existing pavement and Underlying
subsurface conditions, and presents our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations
concerning rernedial construction and future testing aspects of the project.
Test data obtained by GME during this investigation indicates the existing concrete pavement
is relatively consistent in both thickness and compressive strength along those portions of the
road alignment evaluated during this study. The pavement thickness appears to meet or
exceed the current City of Coppell standards for this type of primary thoroughfare arterial
street. The underlying sails for the full depth of the test borings were found to consist of
moderately to very highly plastic fill and residual clay soils of the underlying Eagle lord
Shale Geologic: Formation.
Within this report, GME provides recommendations for both total reconstruction and also
localized repair of those portions of Belt Line Road beginning at 1 -635 extending north to
Denton Tap Road. Selection of the reconstruction or repair options by the City of Coppell will
be dependent upon construction sequencing and/or budgeting. Where possible we recommend
a combination of thorough moisture conditioning of the upper 2 feet of soils beneath the
pavement in combination with time stabilization of the pavement subgrade. This combination
of` moisture - conditioned soils, followed by lime stabilization of the upper 8 -inch soil layer
may only be practical under longer sections of repair or total reconstruction. The combination
should significantly improve the uniformity of subgrade support beneath new pavement
sections. GME also provides an alternate pavement base below reconstructed pavement
sections incorporating the use of TxDOT flexible base materials over geotextile fabric
beneath the new reinforced concrete pavement section. This alternate can be applied beneath
those smaller repair areas or pavement replacement restricted to shorter spans. "The flex base
alternate will facilitate relatively quick pavement repairs but cannot completely compensate
for existing significant moisture variances within the upper two feet of the existing pavement
subgrade soils.
We have enjoyed working with you on this project and are prepared to assist you with any
further questions you may have during the design or reconstruction of the project. It is
recommended that GME stay involved in the construction monitoring to assist in the proper
implementation of the design recommendations. Please contact us at (214) 351 -5633 if you
have questions about this report or when we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
E Consultin
4 0 1 � D alas P. ' a
President
Copies submitted
•s•i•••ss••••n •••e s•ssHO •�ii
Pte. R ZIOLKOWSKI
• 57574
E. .
p ' .'AF O <V a
.� sus �: 6
BELT LINE ROAD
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION
I -635 to Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Texas
GME Project No. 11.04.0045
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following information is a summary of the findings and recommendations presented in the
attached report.
1. GME performed twenty -two pavement cores within the existing northbound and
southbound lanes of Belt Line Road beginning at approximately I -635 and extending to
the north to Denton Tap Road. The pavement cores varied from 5 to 8 inches in diameter.
The height of the cores (concrete pavement thickness at the core locations) varied
between 9.0 and 10.1 inches. Table A -1 in Appendix A presents the test bore locations
and pavement thickness. Additional discussion regarding the concrete pavement cores is
provided within Section 3.3.1.
2. A soil test boring was performed at each of the twenty -two core locations. The test
borings were drilled using truck- mounted drilling equipment and continuous flight
augers. Boring depths varied between 10 to 20 feet below the existing pavement surface.
Table A -1 in Appendix A includes information on the boring depths. Further discussion
about the test borings is provided in Section 2.2 of this report.
3. Fill, possible fill and /or residual fat clay soils were encountered immediately beneath the
concrete pavement within the depths explored. A layer of apparent lime stabilized soil
was encountered beneath the pavement in all twenty -two test borings. The depth of the
lime stabilized soil layer varied from 3 to 8 inches. Varying depths of fill were
encountered in all twenty -two test borings. The depth of the fill varied from
approximately 2 to 6 feet below the bottom of the pavement layer. Table A -1 in
Appendix A provides a summary of the lime - stabilized soil layer thickness and fill
material layer thickness within each test boring. Additional description of the subsurface
materials encountered is provided within Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
4. Boring B -17 was the only test boring in which groundwater seepage was encountered
during drilling. The groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of approximately 6 feet
within this test boring. The depth to groundwater was measured again upon completion of
each test boring. Test boring B -8 was the only test boring in which measurable
groundwater was observed at the completion of drilling. The depth to groundwater in
boring B -8 was measured at approximately 12 feet below the ground surface upon
completion of drilling. The remaining twenty -one borings were found to be dry upon
completion of drilling.
5. Laboratory test results indicate that the clayey soils encountered are moderately to very
highly plastic and variable.
6. If is the City of Coppell determines that the scope of repair of this road will involve
removing and replacement of long sections of Belt Line Road, then we recommend
replacing these areas with the City of Coppell standard pavement section consisting of fl-
inch thick reinforced concrete pavement section underlain by 8 inches of properly
compacted, lime stabilized subgrade (refer to Pavement Design Method No. 1 in Section
4.2). Beneath the standard pavement section, we recommend that the upper 2 feet of soil
beneath the pavement be thoroughly moisture conditioned and compacted to compensate for
the non - uniform drying of the soils. This drying appears to be a result of the trees located
adjacent to the pavement removing moisture from the shallower soils. Additional discussion
is included in Section 4.2 of the report.
7. We have provided an alternative pavement design section where the construction
schedule will not allow reworking the upper two feet of the subgrade and lime
stabilization. This alternate should reduce the reconstruction schedule and cost, possibly
incorporate the use of recycled materials, and if properly installed and maintained,
provide a similar service life (refer to Pavement Design Method No. 2 in Section 4.3).
This alternative pavement section consists of 8 inches of reinforced concrete underlain by
8 inches of compacted flexible base underlain by a geotextile fabric placed over the
existing subgrade soils. The purpose of the fabric is to increase the total support strength
of the pavement system and reduce the potential for contamination of the base from
underlying soil fines during periods of wet weather. This flexible base /fabric combination
should reduce the long -term maintenance costs relative to those normally experienced
with a lime stabilized subgrade condition and extend the performance life of the
pavement.
8. For small areas of repair or replacement along Belt Line Road, we recommend that
Pavement Design Method No. 2 be incorporated.
These recommendations and other design and construction recommendations are discussed in
more detail in the attached report.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................ ............................... i
1.0
INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- --------- -----
l
Site Vicinity and Topographic Map
1.1 Project Information ................................................................................ ..................1
Site Geologic Map
Table A -1
1.2 Purpose of Exploration .............................................................. ..............................1
Figure 3
Boring Location Plan (Plan Divided into Figures 3A through 3F)
1.3 Scope of Exploration ................................................................. ...............................
l
2.0
PAVEMENT AND FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ...... ..............................3
2.1 Site Reconnaissance and Project Scope Development .............. ..............................3
2.2 Field Exploration ....................................................................... ..............................3
2.3 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................... ....................... .......5
2.4 Concrete Testing -------------------------- ------------------------- - - - - -- -- ..........5
3.0
SITE, PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............. ..............................6
3.1 Site Description .......................................................................... ................. .............6
3.2 Area and Site Geology ............................................................... ....................... .......6
3.3 Pavement and Subsurface Conditions ........................................ ..............................7
4.0
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... ..............................9
4.1 Findings and Discussion ............................................................ ..............................9
4.2 Pavement Reconstruction Method No. 1 .................................. .............................12
4.3 Pavement Reconstruction Method No. 2 .................................. .............................14
4.4 General Pavement Recommendations for Both Methods ......... .............................15
4.5 Drainage and Pavement Maintenance ....................................... .............................16
4.6 Site and Subgrade Preparation .................................................. .............................16
4.7 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................ .............................17
4.8 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................... .............................18
4.9 Additional discussion Regarding Pavement Failure and Repair Procedures .........
18
5.0
QUALIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... .............................22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Text Figures, Tables and Photographs
Figure 1
Site Vicinity and Topographic Map
Figure 2
Site Geologic Map
Table A -1
Pavement and Test Boring Summary Table
Figure 3
Boring Location Plan (Plan Divided into Figures 3A through 3F)
Pavement Distress Photographs
APPENDIX B Test Boring Results
Record of Subsurface Exploration Sheets (Borings B -1 through B -32 *)
Key to Symbols and Classifications - Soil
APPENDIX C Concrete Core Results
Concrete Core Photographs (Borings B -1 through B -32 *)
Table C -1 — Concrete Core Test Data
* Denotes refer to Figures 3A through 3F and Section 2.2.2 for actual borings drilled.
BELT LINE ROAD
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION
I -635 to Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Texas
GME Project No. 11.04.0045
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Information
We understand that the City of Coppell has experienced problems with pavement sections
along the southern portion of Belt Line Road for the past several years. Significant total
and differential soil related movement has been observed over that portion of Belt Line
Road beginning at the City of Coppell southern city limits (defined by I -635 -
Southbound and Hackberry Road- Northbound) and extending a distance of
approximately 8,000 feet north to Denton Tap (refer to Figure 1 in Appendix A). The
movement has resulted in separation (widening) of longitudinal pavement joints creating
a safety hazard and difficult maintenance condition. The City of Coppell informed GME
that due to settlement beneath certain areas of the street, pavement panels had to be
hydraulically lifted with Uretek materials (expanding foam) to match adjacent panel
grades in order to correct differential the movements between panels. We also understand
that the City has sealed cracks, joints and holes on a periodic basis.
1.2 Purpose of Exploration
The objective of this exploration was to explore the concrete pavement and underlying
subsurface conditions along a specific area of Belt Line Road in the City of Coppell. The
length of this project extended approximately 8000 feet beginning from the southern
limits of the City of Coppell near Interstate I -635 and extending north to Denton Tap
Road. Once our geotechnical analyses were complete, our scope of services included
issuing this report providing our findings and recommendations for possible corrective
action.
1.3 Scope of Exploration
GME's scope of work included a site reconnaissance and layout of test borings, concrete
coring, soil test boring and sampling, laboratory testing, engineering evaluation of the
field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. The services were provided
in general accordance with our Updated Proposal Number P11.04.0030 dated March 3,
2011 and were authorized by Mr. Clay Phillips, City Manager with City of Coppell by
written acceptance of our proposal dated March 8, 2011. (GME's original proposal for
the project was completed in December 2008. We understand that funding for the project
was not approved until approximately 2 years and 3 months later). Specifically, the scope
of our report was to address the following:
1
1. Description of the existing site conditions.
2. A description of the area and site geologic and subsurface conditions.
3. Pavement thickness, subsurface soil stratigraphy and groundwater observations at
the test boring locations.
4. Discussion regarding the findings of the field and laboratory testing.
5. Recommendations for appropriate pavement sections and subgrade preparation
for reconstructing either limited areas or long sections of Belt Line Road. The
proposed pavement sections were to be based upon the existing City of Coppell
standard pavement section details.
6. Recommendations for street repair and reconstruction, earthwork, subgrade
stabilization, proofrolling, and pavement drainage, as required. Our
recommendations were also to provide information on compaction and placement
of fill materials and analysis of the effect of weather and construction equipment
on the soils during construction.
7. Analysis of soils to ascertain presence of potentially expansive soil conditions.
2
2.0 PAVEMENT AND FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
2.1 Site Reconnaissance and Project Scope Development
Two GME senior engineers and a GME project geologist visually evaluated the Belt Line
Road alignment extending from the southern city of Coppell limits near Interstate I -635
north to Denton Tap Road. Their observations were used during the formulation of the
recommendations contained within this report.
During preparation of our original proposal to perform this pavement investigation and
during the drilling investigation, GME performed multiple visual observations of the
pavement along this section of roadway. The GME engineers observed that the pavement
movement occurring within both inside and outside lanes and in both the north and south
directions of Belt Line Road. Depending upon location along the alignment, GME
observed evidence of both soil related upward movement (heave) and also soil related
settlement of the pavement surface. Some areas of pavement settlement were adjacent to
where medium to large diameter trees were present. The majority of those trees were
located within the inside median dividing the north and south bound lanes. GME's initial
observations indicated that some of the upward pavement movement appears to be
associated with swelling of the underlying clay soils. The upward pavement movement
appears to have caused the joints between adjacent pavement lanes to widen and lift
differentially. The resulting wider displaced joint has created both a safety hazard and
maintenance problem. Some of the pavement movement (settlement) appears to have
been caused by shrinkage of the shallow clay soils below the pavement adjacent to where
trees are located within the center median strip along the road alignment. While it
appeared that some maintenance of the pavement has been performed, the swelling and
related heave of the underlying clay soils has been exacerbated by moisture infiltration
through open joints and cracks. Additional discussion regarding the site observations and
suspected causes of pavement movement are included in Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the
report.
2.2 Field Exploration
GME originally proposed to drill a total of thirty-four (34), 10 -foot deep borings along
the section of the Belt Line Road alignment to be investigated. The boring locations were
distributed along both the outside and inside lanes. The test borings were spaced on
approximate 500 -foot intervals along the road alignment. A total of 340 feet of soil drilling
was originally proposed. Based on discussion with the City of Coppell engineer, it was
decided to reduce the number of test borings to twenty -three (23) test borings. This
reduction in scope was in order to extend the depth of some of the borings from 10 feet to 20
feet below the pavement surface while maintaining the total boring footage within the
proposed total drilling quantity of 340 feet. Ten test borings as indicated in Table A.1-
Summary Table within Appendix A were identified to drill to an increased total depth of 20
feet. During the drilling and coring process, one additional boring (B -26) had to be
eliminated due to safety concerns. At this location it was determined that to complete this
3
boring, the drilling rig would be extending unsafely into the center lane of traffic along the
southbound side of Belt Line Road.
In summary, pavement coring and soil drilling and sampling were completed at twenty -
two (22) test boring locations along Belt Line Road. Sixteen of the borings were
performed in the outer lanes along the northbound and southbound sides of Belt Line Road,
while the remaining six borings were performed within the inside lanes of the road in both
directions. The pavement core /test boring locations summarized on Table A -1 in Appendix
A. The locations are referenced from the north end of the project beginning at Denton Tap
Road and extending south to the City of Coppell southern limits near Interstate I -635. Each
boring location identified in Table A -1 is also oriented by road direction and lane
description. The location of the original thirty-four test borings are depicted in Appendix A
on Figures 3A through 3F- Boring Location Plans. Test borings that were in the revised
scope and drilled are differentiated by filled boring symbols as compared to those test
borings that were not drilled, which are depicted by open boring symbols.
The test borings were drilled using truck- mounted drilling equipment and continuous flight
augers. The boring depths varied from 10 to 20 feet below the pavement surface. During
drilling, observations for were made for the presence of groundwater seepage. An
observation for the evidence of groundwater in the boreholes was performed at the
completion of each borehole. All test borings were either backfilled with drill cuttings to
within 5 feet below the surface and then completed with cement/bentonite grout to the
pavement subgrade or the borehole was completely grouted with cement/bentonite from the
bottom of the hole to the pavement subgrade. Each core hole in the pavement was patched
with high strength concrete to the top of the original pavement surface.
At each of the boring /core locations, pavement thickness measurements were obtained by
measuring the height of the concrete core obtained from the pavement at the respective
boring locations. The pavement cores varied from 5 to 8 inches in diameter. At each
boring /core location, samples of subgrade were obtained from immediately beneath the
pavement and tested for the presence of lime with a phenolphthalein solution. Testing of
the subgrade soils for lime was intended to provide an indication of the presence and
depth of any existing lime treatment in the subgrade soils.
Within all twenty -two completed test borings, representative undisturbed samples of the
cohesive subsurface materials were obtained by hydraulically pressing 3 -inch outside -
diameter (O.D.) thin -wall tubes into the underlying soils at selected depths (ASTM D
1587). These samples were removed from the sampling tubes in the field and examined
visually. One representative portion of each sample was sealed in a plastic bag for use in
future visual examinations and testing in the laboratory.
The soil descriptions and classifications are based on visual examination and should be
considered approximate. Record of Subsurface Exploration Sheets (boring logs) that
graphically depict soil descriptions, penetration resistance, and observed groundwater
levels, are included in Appendix B.
2.3 Laboratory Testing
Natural moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216) and Atterberg limit tests (ASTM D 4318)
were performed on selected samples to aid in classifying the subsurface materials and to
determine the engineering characteristics of the materials. In addition, hand penetrometer
strength tests were performed on selected soil samples. Results of all laboratory tests
described above are provided on the boring logs in Appendix B.
2.4 Concrete Testing
The concrete cores obtained from all twenty -two of the completed boring locations were
measured for total height to provide an indication of pavement thickness at the boring
location. The pavement core heights are provided in Table A -1 within Appendix A.
Photographs of the cores were also obtained and are included in Appendix C of this
report. Seven of the concrete cores were also sawn, capped with high strength sulfur
capping compound, and tested for compressive strength. The concrete core compressive
strength test results are provided in Table C -1- Concrete Core Test Data in Appendix C.
5
3.0 SITE, PAVEMENT AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Description
The City of Coppell retained GME to investigate an approximate 8,000 foot length of
Belt Line Road beginning at the City of Coppell southern limits near Interstate I -635
(southbound lanes) and Hackberry Road (northbound lanes) and extending north to
Denton Tap Road as shown on Figure 1- Site Vicinity and Topographic Map in Appendix
A. During our site reconnaissance, we observed the existing street to be constructed of
reinforced concrete pavement. Belt Line Road consists of 6 primary traffic lanes with
three lanes each in the north and south directions. At the majority of the intersections
with connector streets and at some retail and commercial business locations, there are
either inside or outside turn lanes. A median strip extends along the center of the entire
length of Belt Line Road. The median area is planted with grass with some individual
trees and tree clusters. According to Mr. John Elias, Parks Operation Manager with the
City of Coppell, the variety of trees includes Bradford Pear, Cedar Elm, Mexican Plum,
Red Oak, Eves Necklace, Mesquite and Live Oak. The outside edges of the street are
primarily covered with grass and weeds. There are occasional trees of various varieties
also along the outside of the alignment. It was reported that this section of Belt Line Road
being investigated was constructed somewhere between the years 1985 through 1990.
Based on the Site Vicinity and Topographic Map of the project area (refer to Figure 1 in
Appendix A), and based on our visual observations, the site topography along the
roadway varies from little slope along the majority of the road length with a gentle rise in
the topography at the south end as the street approaches the City of Coppell southern city
limits. North Lake, a City of Dallas water supply lake, is located along the east side of
Belt Line Road within the middle section of the 8000 -foot length of roadway
investigated. During grading for Belt Line Road, several small drainage tributaries that
previously discharged into North Lake had apparently either been backfilled or
rechanneled into box culverts that traverse beneath the road.
3.2 Area and Site Geology
The site is in an area underlain by soil and rock materials of the Eagle Ford Shale
Geologic Formation (refer to Figure 2- Site Geologic Map in Appendix A). The Eagle
Ford Formation consists primarily of interbedded shales and clayey shales with thin
limestone beds. It has a thickness of 200 to 300 feet and serves as a confining layer above
the underlying water - bearing Woodbine Formation. The upper plastic soils encountered
exhibit potentially moderately to highly expansive characteristics.
The naturally developed soil profile may be changed by erosion and /or grading activities,
so that the upper, more weathered zones may be completely stripped away. Also, residual
soils may be covered by washed -in alluvial soils, man -made fills, or both. Along the road
alignment, apparent lime stabilized clay soils, fill soils and then residual clay soils were
encountered within the upper portions at each of the boring locations.
rol
3.3 Pavement and Subsurface Conditions
Data from the pavement cores and soil test borings are presented on the Records of
Subsurface Exploration sheets (boring logs) included in Appendix B. A total of twenty -
two pavement cores and test borings were drilled at the approximate locations depicted as
B -1 to B -32 on Figures 3A through 3F- Boring Location Plans included in Appendix A.
The pavement and subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those
shown on the Record of Subsurface Exploration Sheets are based on the pavement cores
and test borings drilled at the site and represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions
based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical
engineering judgement. We note that the transition between different soil strata is less
distinct than those shown on the test boring records.
3.3.1 Concrete Pavement
The concrete pavement was found to vary in thickness from 9.0 to 10.1 inches within the
areas explored. The pavement core lengths are summarized on Table A -1 in Appendix A.
The compressive strength of the seven concrete cores tested was found to vary from 5,562
psi to 9,841 psi. A summary of the compressive strength test results is provided as Table C -1
in Appendix C.
GME did not observe any voids between the pavement and subgrade at any of the
twenty -two boring locations. The reinforcing steel was generally observed at or near the
mid -depth of the pavement core. No foam material was observed attached to or between
the pavement and subgrade at any of the twenty -two test locations.
3.3.2 Lime - Stabilized Clay Soils
Materials identified as lime - stabilized clay were encountered beneath the pavement at all
twenty -two test boring locations. The lime - stabilized clay soils were likely used to
provide a uniform subgrade condition beneath the pavement layer. The depth of the lime
stabilized soil materials varied from approximately 3 inches to approximately 8 inches.
The variability in depth may have resulted from leaching of the lime from the near
surface soils over the 20 to 25 year period that has elapsed since the pavement was
originally installed. This leaching is considered typical for lime - treated materials where
insufficient quantities of lime were initially mixed with the soil. Where tested, the
plasticity index (PI) of the lime - treated soil generally varied between 20 and 35. These
test values support evidence of long -term leaching of the lime from the subgrade soils
3.3.3 Clay Fill and Residual Clay Soils
Clay fill and natural residual fat clay soils were encountered beneath the lime - stabilized
soils. The fill soils extended from approximately 2 to 6 feet beneath the ground surface.
The fill is likely associated with grading activities along the road alignment and adjacent
to North Lake.
7
Residual fat clay soils were encountered beneath the fill soils within all twenty -two test
borings. The residual soils extend to the boring termination depths of 10 to 20 feet.
The color of the fill and residual clay soils varied from dark brown to brown to tan to
gray. These clay soils contained varying amounts and sizes of calcite, calcareous
material, small pebbles, iron oxide stains, iron oxide nodules and other inclusions within
the soil matrix. Below 6 to 8 feet, samples of the soils were often observed to be blocky
in structure. This is typical for residual soils derived from the underlying shale bedrock.
Shale bedrock was not encountered within any of the test borings prior to the termination
depth.
The plasticity index (PI) of the fill and residual clay materials varied from 20 to 64, the
soil moisture content varied from 19 to 36 percent, and the soil consistency varied from
medium stiff to hard. The pocket penetrometer compressive strength of the clay soils
varied from 1.0 to greater than 4.5 ts£
3.3.4 Groundwater
The test borings were advanced with standard continuous flight and hollow stem auger
drilling techniques. The depth to groundwater was measured at each test boring during
drilling and at the completion of drilling at each boring location. Groundwater seepage
was encountered in only one of the twenty -two test borings (B -17) during drilling. The
groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of approximately 6 feet within this test
boring. The depth to groundwater was measured again upon completion of each test
boring. Final groundwater measurements detected groundwater in only one of the twenty -
two test borings (B -8) at a depth of approximately 12 feet upon completion. The
remaining twenty -one borings were found to be dry upon completion.
It is our experience that groundwater seepage flow in this formation generally occurs
through the pervious sand seams or along the interface of the shale bedrock layer.
Groundwater may also be encountered flowing through joints or fractures in the clay
strata or through more permeable seams within the shale bedrock. It should be noted that
groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally depending on the amount of rainfall, prevailing
weather conditions, and subsurface drainage characteristics, and may be different at other
times.
M .
4.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Findings and Discussion
Based on discussion with the client, GME understands that the City of Coppell design
standard for an arterial street such as Belt Line Road requires the pavement section to be
8- inches of reinforced concrete placed over 6- inches of compacted lime- stabilized
subgrade soils. The required 28 -day concrete strength is generally 3,600 psi. The City
construction standards may have been different at the time this section of Belt Line Road
was constructed.
The results of this pavement investigation by GME revealed that neither neither the
pavement thickness nor the compressive strength of the pavement concrete appear to be
factors contributing to the observed pavement distress. The results of the subsurface soil
investigation and sampling performed during this pavement investigation revealed
several conditions that, in GME's opinion, may explain the history of continued
pavement distress along this section of Belt Line Road. These conditions are summarized
below, then followed by additional discussion:
• Soil heave resulting from moisture increases within the underlying expansive soils
beneath the pavements.
• Soil shrinkage induced pavement settlement resulting from the water demand of
nearby trees and tree root systems extending beneath the pavements.
• Inadequate joint and crack maintenance during the pavement life allowing
moisture infiltration to the subgrade soils and related moisture induced heave.
Site Photographs A GME representative photographed typical areas of pavement distress
along the road alignment at various locations. The photographs are included as
Photographs 1 through 8 within Appendix A.
Photographs 1 through 3 were taken within the north bound, outside lanes between
borings B -4 and B -5. This area of the road has significant cracks and pavement damage.
Most of the cracks and distress have been sealed with asphalt sealant, but a few cracks
were not sealed. While it is GME's opinion that soil heave has occurred below many
sections of pavement along the road alignment investigated, the section of north bound
pavement starting near B -3 and extending to near boring B -6 appears to be the worst
section exhibiting pavement distress caused by differential upward (swell) movements.
Further discussion regarding the mechanism of soil heave below the pavements is
provided below.
Photograph 5 within Appendix A shows trees within the median strip near boring B -32. It
was GME's observation that some of the pavement damage observed along the entire
section of road investigated was pavement settlement caused by drying shrinkage of the
soils caused by the water demand of adjacent trees and tree root systems. Photograph 8
within Appendix A depicts the typical radial crack pattern often associated with distress
E
caused by trees adjacent to the pavement. Further discussion regarding soil shrinkage
below the pavements is provided below.
Photographs 4, 6 and 7 within Appendix A show open joints with vertical and horizontal
displacement of the pavement lanes. This condition has likely resulted from a
combination of both swelling and shrinkage of the soils beneath the pavement. Further
discussion regarding the pavement joint condition and its continued effect of the
pavement performance is described below.
Soil Heave Mechanism The soils observed below the road pavement investigated during
this study consist of moderately to very highly plastic expansive clays typical of the
Coppell area. The characteristic which causes the soils to increase in volume (swell)
when provided access to water and conversely to decrease in volume (shrink) when
exposed to drying conditions is related to the chemical composition and mineralogy of
these soils. These soils contain varying quantities of montmorillonite clay within the soil
matrix. Montmorillonite soils contain a double layer of tetrahedral and octahedral
molecule layers bound together by a weak layer of oxide anions. When exposed to a
source of water, the stronger particle charge of the water molecule attaches to the oxide
anions, resulting in the water molecule being inserted between the double layer,
expanding the double molecule layers. When subjected to drying, the double layer
releases the inner -layer water molecule and shrinks. While this occurs on a molecular
level, collectively the overall volume of the soil will experience rather large volume
changes (shrink and swell) with fluctuation in the available soil moisture.
It is common within this north Texas area to relate the soil plasticity to the expansive
potential of the soil. The lower the soil plasticity, the lower the soil swell potential.
Conversely, the higher the soil plasticity, the higher potential for soil swell to occur. The
in -situ moisture condition of the soils at the time of analysis relative to that at the time of
construction is very important. Due to the age of the roadway, it is unlikely that there is
any existing information that would indicate the moisture condition of the soils at the
time the roadway was constructed.
Soil Heave Below the Pavement: GME estimated the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR)
movement along the roadway at each of the twenty -two test boring locations. The
analyses for this PVR estimate was based on soil plasticity data and the TxDOT method
124 -E in order to develop a range of estimated potential vertical rise that may have
occurred over the life of the pavement. The potential vertical rise was estimated for the
upper 15 feet of soil within each boring. Based on the laboratory data, GME estimates 3.5
to 6 inches of potential vertical rise could occur beneath the pavement over its design life.
GME reviewed the soil moisture content within soil samples obtained at each boring
location and compared the soil moisture content to the plastic limit of the soils. These test
results are provided on the test borings included within Appendix B. Comparing the soil
moisture content with the soil plastic limit assists in determining whether the soil is either
a) considered dry of the plastic limit (generally -2% less or drier of the plastic limit); b)
10
near or at the plastic limit (generally —2% to + 2% of the plastic limit; or c) considered
wet of the plastic limit (generally +2% or wetter of the plastic limit). This comparison
allows us to establish a preliminary estimate of the possible swell potential remaining
below the pavements. At the time this investigation was performed, GME observed the
majority of the soil moisture contents were wet of the plastic limit varying from + 3% to
as wet as +15% above the soil plastic limit_ In our experience, the elevated soil moisture
content indicates long term increase of the soil moisture over the pavement life.
Soil Shrinkage Below the Pavement: A portion of the distress occurring beneath the
pavements along this section of Belt Line Road appears to be the result of shrinkage of
the upper zone of soils beneath the pavement. In GME's opinion, the trees within the
median strip and adjacent to the pavement, both the number and species, have adversely
affected the localized soil moisture conditions beneath the pavement areas. During dry
periods of the year when the trees exert high water demand on the soils, tree roots
beneath the pavement withdraw significant moisture from the soils resulting in localized
soil shrinkage and loss of support of the pavement slab. In all the instances where in our
opinion the trees are causing pavement settlement, the GME engineer observed a
downward rotation of the slab and minor to moderate radial geometry of cracking in the
pavement as shown on Photograph 8 within Appendix A.
There are numerous trees located relatively close to the edge of the pavement within the
median strip. The City of Coppell Parks Department personnel provided GME
information regarding the species of trees located within then the median area. It was
reported that the variety of trees located within the median include: Bradford Pear, Cedar
Elm, Mexican Plum, Red Oak, Eves Necklace, Mesquite and Live Oak. City personnel
reported that Cedar Elm, Eves Necklace and Mexican Plum trees have a very low water
demand. Bald Cypress, Live Oak and Red Oak trees were reported to have low water
demand. Bradford Pear trees were reported to have a moderate water demand. Based on
GME's observation, it appeared that the most readily observable shrinkage movements
occurred in those areas next to trees with low to medium water demand but in some
instance, shrinkage movements were observed in areas adjacent trees with very low water
demand.
Maintenance of Pavement Joints: GME observed open joints at numerous adjacent
pavement sections within the inside, center and outside lanes of Belt Line Road. These
open joints will allow moisture infiltration into the underlying expansive soils When
evaluating concrete pavement sections, one of the leading causes of premature pavement
failures (structural failures), is when the subgrade system has been weakened due to
exposure to excess moisture. While there are several sources from which moisture can
access the subgrade, the most common source is from surface water migrating down
through the pavement to the underlying subgrade through unsealed pavement joints or
cracks. Once moisture or free water comes into contact with clay subgrade soils, the soils
become soft, reducing the pavement support in the area of the joint. When the overlying
concrete pavement and underlying moist or wet subgrade soils are subjected to repeated
11
wheel loads (especially heavy wheel loads), the subgrade loses its support strength and
premature failure or structural failure of the concrete pavement occurs in these areas.
Other Items of Discussion: From plans provided from the City prior to performing the
investigation, and from the utility locate provider marking, GME observed relatively few
utility lines traversing beneath the street. Most of the utilities are located beneath grassed
areas outside the street limits with one storm drain line traversing south to north within
the outside lane of the southbound side of Belt Line Road. There are a few lateral
crossings including several box culverts that drain into North Lake. We did not observe
any areas where surface expressions or distress suggested settlement of utility line
backfill. In our opinion, settlement of utility line backfill does not appear to be a
contributor to the pavement distress that has occurred on this section of Belt Line Road.
Based on the results of the pavement and subsurface investigation, GME developed
several recommendations for replacing the pavement along this section of Belt Line
Road. It is our opinion that, if properly installed and maintained, each of these sections
should provide a 20 -year performance life. The first recommended section (Pavement
Method No. 1) is to remove the concrete pavement, moisture condition the upper two feet
of soil and lime stabilize the upper 8 inches of subgrade before installing a new concrete
pavement that complies with the current City of Coppell standard pavement section. The
second recommended section (Pavement Method No. 2) is to remove the concrete
pavement and a portion of the underlying subgrade soil, install a geotextile fabric over
the exposed subgrade soil, install a layer of flexible base material and then install
concrete pavement that complies with the current City of Coppell standards.
It is intended that both pavement methods be constructed over long (greater than 2500
feet) of the pavement, to make installation of the pavement more economical. For shorter
sections of pavement replacement, GME recommends Pavement Method No. 2.
Additional recommendations regarding the pavement methods are provided in the
following sections. Construction recommendations are provided at the end of this report
section.
4.2 Pavement Reconstruction Method No. 1
We anticipate that once the existing concrete pavement has been removed, variable
plastic fill or natural fat clay soils will be exposed across the site surface. Significant
portions of the shallow surficial soils may have been previously lime stabilized and may
contain some residual lime. Since these clay soils exhibit a potential for shrinking and
swelling, it is likely that any new pavements constructed on -site will be subject to some
movement from the soils below, but on a smaller magnitude than if these soils had never
been previously covered.
Some differential movement of the expansive subgrade soils should be anticipated once
grading is completed to re- establish the grades within the pavement area. The pavement
12
surfaces should be finished and sloped for positive drainage. Good perimeter drainage
around the pavements is also recommended.
Due to the effects of drying of the upper zone of soils observed in a several of the test
boring locations and the presence of trees within the median strips and adjacent the
outside lanes of traffic, GME recommends moisture conditioning of the soils below
reconstructed pavement areas if this method (Method No. 1) of the pavement
reconstruction is performed. GME has observed several local municipalities within the
same geologic formation as to that encountered beneath Belt Line Road that are requiring
moisture - conditioning of the upper zone of soils prior to performing lime stabilization.
The depth of moisture- conditioning is generally to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the
pavement subgrade elevation. Additionally, the moisture treatment and lime stabilization
is often extended beyond the edge of the pavement for a distance of at least 2 feet, but
sometimes as great as 4 feet. A 10 mil poly sheeting is placed from the edge of the
pavement curb to 4 to 6 feet outside the pavement edge and covered with at least 6 inches
of lightly to moderately compacted clay soil. The purpose of the poly layer is to help
prevent from moisture losses along the edge of the pavement after the effort has been
performed to raise the soil moisture content within the moisture treated zone.
All moisture- conditioned and recompacted clay soils must be compacted to a dry density
of at least 95 percent of Standard Proctor and not exceeding 98 percent. The compacted
moisture content of the clays during placement must be within plus 3 to plus 7 percentage
points of the soil optimum moisture content.
Once moisture- conditioning of the upper 2 feet of soil is completed, then within 48 to 72
hours, we recommend that the upper 8 inches of exposed soil be lime stabilized. The
purpose of lime stabilization is not to reduce the movements beneath the pavements, but
instead to improve the bearing values of the pavement subgrade soils and provide
uniform soil conditions on which to construct the pavements. For estimating purposes
only, it should be assumed that 10 percent lime will be necessary to achieve the desired
stabilization. We recommend performing a lime- series test based on ASTM D -6276 at or
near the start of construction, after the pavements have been removed, to determine the
appropriate lime content required for proper stabilization results.
To apply the lime, the exposed surface of the soils should be scarified to a depth of at
least 8 inches and mixed with 10 percent hydrated lime (approximately 45 pounds per
square yard) in accordance with the procedures described in the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction, North Central Texas, Item 4.6, prepared by the North
Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG). The sealed soil -lime mixture should
be allowed to cure for a minimum of 48 hours, then be remixed. The remixing and
pulverization operation, as described in NCTCOG Item 4.6, should proceed until the soil
is uniformly broken down and meets the gradation limits provided in that specification.
The resulting mixture should then be brought to near optimum (optimum to plus 3
percentage points) moisture condition and uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95
13
percent of Standard Proctor (ASTM D -698) density. The compacted material should then
be covered immediately with the paving or kept moist until the paving is placed.
In all areas where hydrated lime is applied to stabilize the subgrade soils, routine
gradation tests should be performed at a rate of one test every 10,000 square feet of
paving area and at least one test per day. The specified gradation ranges outlined in
NCTCOG Item 4.6 should be required. The testing will confirm whether the material has
been adequately stabilized and mixed. Should areas be observed not to conform when
tested, then additional lime or remixing must be performed to bring the soil into
compliance for the 10,000 square feet area represented by the deficient tests. Field
density testing should also be performed at the above- recommended frequency to confirm
proper compaction.
The following pavement sections have been developed based on anticipated traffic
conditions for consideration at this site.
Reinforced Concrete Section- Pavement Method No. 1
8.0 in. Reinforced concrete
8.0 in. Lime stabilized and compacted subgrade*
* Denotes lime stabilization should be performed after the upper 2 feet of soil has been
moisture- conditioned and recompacted.
4.3 Pavement Reconstruction Method No. 2
A recommended alternative pavement section for this project incorporates the use of the
flexible base beneath the pavement in lieu of lime stabilized clays. This alternate may
reduce the project cost and construction schedule. The savings would result from
eliminating lime stabilization of the clay soils, resulting in quicker preparation of the base
for paving.
The following alternative pavement section has been developed based on anticipated
traffic conditions for consideration at this site.
Reinforced Concrete Section- Pavement Method No. 2
8.0 in. Reinforced concrete
8.0 in. Compacted Flexible Base Material **
** GME recommends that a woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 600X be placed between
the flexible base materials and underlying subgrade to maintain segregation of the flex base
from the underlying subgrade soils. The geotextile fabric should be installed per the
manufacturer's recommendations.
14
All flexible base materials must meet the requirements of TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade
1 or 2 or recycled concrete, Grade D. Flex base materials must be compacted to a minimum
100 percent Standard Proctor at or within plus or minus 2 percentage points of optimum
moisture.
4.4 General Pavement Recommendations for Both Methods
The concrete placed for this project should meet the following City of Coppell minimum
standards:
Minimum Compressive Strength @ 28 days ....... ............................... .......................... 3,600 psi
Air Content ............................................................................................ ....•.........................4-6%
A relatively close joint spacing of 15 to 20 feet is preferred. Local area practice often
includes the use of No. 3 or No. 4 reinforcing steel bars in each direction at spacing of 12
to 24 inches, with an 18 -inch spacing being commonly used.
Control joints should be sawed as soon as the concrete will allow and prior to shrinkage
cracking occurring. Expansion joints are typically placed on 60 to 80 foot centers
however the placement of all joints is a factor of the pavement shape. The design civil
engineer is best suited for determining the joint spacing and locations.
A properly graded and drained pavement subgrade to minimize the trapping of water
under the pavement must also be provided. Proper concrete finishing and curing
practices must be employed. All paving materials should comply with the Texas
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction of Highways,
Streets and Bridges, Item 360, 1993. Loading (traffic) must not be allowed on the
pavement until the concrete has reached at least 75 percent of its design strength.
The recommended pavement design sections are subject to successful completion of site
drainage and subgrade preparation and fill placement as recommended in this report. A
GME soil engineering technician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer
should observe placement and compaction of the moisture- conditioned soil layer, lime
stabilized subgrade layer and /or flexible base material layer. They should also perform
soil density tests to confirm that the material has been placed in accordance with our
recommendations.
The pavement sections described above are considered suitable for general purpose usage
for the anticipated subgrade conditions. A comprehensive analysis of the pavement
system would include consideration of traffic loads, frequency, subgrade drainage, design
life and the overall economics. In general, it is expected that the intended reinforced
concrete pavement life could be achieved with an aggressive maintenance program
including seal coating of cracks and joints to help retard moisture migration into the
subgrade soils.
15
GME does not recommend planting trees within median areas adjacent to pavements.
Subgrade moisture gains due to overwatering and moisture losses due to the root systems
tend to significantly reduce the performance life and increase maintenance of the
pavement. If new trees are installed in pavement medians, GME recommends that species
of trees with low water demand be planted and adequate root barriers be installed parallel
to the curbs.
4.5 Drainage and Pavement Maintenance
It is recommended that positive surface drainage be incorporated into the final grading
plan to reduce seasonal variations in moisture content of the underlying soils. The long-
term performance of the new pavement sections, regardless of the pavement method
chosen, will be affected greatly by the amount of annual pavement maintenance
performed. GME recommends that the City of Coppell implement a system to regularly
inspect, clean out and seal all the pavement joints to protect the subgrade against surface
moisture infiltration. Any existing cracks or future cracks that occur must be properly
sealed as soon as they are observed.
4.6 Site and Subgrade Preparation
Before proceeding with construction of any new pavement, all exiting pavements should
be stripped from the proposed construction area.
After stripping and excavating areas intended to support the new pavements sections,
these areas must be carefully evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. If pavement
reconstruction Method No. 1 is chosen, once the existing pavement has been removed
and the subgrade exposed, then the subgrade must be proofrolled with a 20- to 30 -ton
loaded truck or other pneumatic -tired vehicle of similar size and weight. The purpose of
the proofrolling is to locate soft, weak, or excessively wet soils present at the time of
construction. Any unsuitable materials observed during the evaluation and proofrolling
operations must be undercut and replaced with compacted fill or stabilized in- place. The
proofrolling operation must be performed under the observation of a qualified
geotechnical engineer or his representative. The geotechnical engineer must also
determine whether the existing subgrade is suitable for the proposed construction.
Proofrolling should be performed once the fabric and base material are installed if
pavement reconstruction Method No. 2 is chosen.
Care should be exercised during the grading operations at the site. The traffic of heavy
equipment, including heavy compaction equipment, may create a general deterioration of
the shallower, clayey soils. Therefore, it should be anticipated that some construction
difficulties could be encountered during periods when these soils are saturated and that it
may be necessary to improve, remove or simply stay off of the saturated soils.
16
4.7 Fill Placement and Compaction
Flexible Base Materials
If the pavement section discussed as Method No. 2 within Section 4.3 of the report is
selected, the imported flexible base materials including recycled concrete flexible base
material must meet TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 or 2 or Type D. These materials
must be placed and compacted to achieve a compacted lift thickness of no less than 6-
inches. The flex base material must be compacted to at least 100 percent of the Standard
Proctor maximum dry density. The compacted moisture of the material should be at or
within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content.
Clay Fill Soils
All on -site soils with a plasticity index greater than 15 can be used as grade -raise fill in
the pavement areas. All clay soils including those that are scarified, moisture- conditioned
and recompacted, must be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of Standard
Proctor and not exceeding 98 percent. The compacted moisture content of the clays
during placement must be within plus 3 to plus 7 percentage points of the soil optimum
moisture content. Recommendations for compaction of lime - stabilized materials is
provided within Section 4.2.
General Guidelines
Compaction of any fill by flooding must not be permitted. During wet and rainy periods,
aeration is generally necessary to bring the fill materials to the required moisture
condition. During dry periods, the addition of water may be necessary to reach the proper
soil moisture content for compaction.
Compaction must be accomplished by placing the clayey fill in 8 -inch thick loose lifts
and the flexible base fill in 6 -inch thick lifts and compacting each lift to at least the
specified minimum dry density. It is imperative that the fill particle size be less than four
inches in diameter as they are placed in the fill lift prior to compaction. If larger clods or
rock fragments are encountered during grading, then these clods or rock fragments must
be broken down prior to final placement in the fill. This may require placement of the
material, an initial compactive effort to break the clods down, scarifying, wetting and
recompacting.
For this project, it is necessary that the contractor be required to provide equipment
specifically designed for fill compaction. Walking in clayey fill or compacting the fill
with track type equipment by itself, such as bulldozers or front -end loaders, should not be
considered acceptable compaction methods or equipment. Typically, two or four wheel,
smooth steel drum compactors must be utilized for compacting all flexible base fill. For
clay materials, two or four wheel, steel drum, self - propelled or tractor- pulled, sheepsfoot
compactors must be utilized for compacting We have found that this type of equipment is
best for breaking down any large clods, kneading the clayey soils to provide more
17
uniformity in the resulting compacted fill, and tying the clay fill material layers together
into a well compacted, homogeneous material. Additionally, a water truck should be kept
on the site to provide adequate moisture to the fill as it is placed.
In order for the fill materials to perform as intended, the fill material must be placed in a
manner which produces a good uniform fill compacted within the density and moisture
ranges outlined in the preceding paragraphs. Density testing must be performed on fill
soils to confirm this performance as construction progresses. In all pavement areas, a
testing frequency of at least 1 test per lift per each 10,000 square feet should be sufficient.
Should utility trench backfill be included within the scope of this pavement replacement
project, then the testing frequency for utility trench backfill should no less than one
density test for each 1 foot of compacted fill depth (2 lifts) and each 150 lineal feet of
trench. Depending upon the type of compaction equipment used for backfill compaction
in utility trenches, it may be necessary to reduce the fill lift thickness and maximum
particle size to about one -half of the above recommended dimensions in order to achieve
properly compacted backfill.
4.8 Groundwater Conditions
Again, positive drainage should be maintained throughout construction. Rainwater and
runoff, must not be allowed to accumulate in utility excavations or on the pavement
subgrade. Any incidental water that does accumulate in these areas must be removed
immediately by pumping from small sumps within the excavations. Groundwater levels
are subject to seasonal, climatic and other variations and may be different at other times
and locations than those stated in this report.
4.9 Additional Discussion Regarding Pavement Failure and Repair Procedures
Concrete pavement systems are largely dependent upon uniformity of subgrade support
in order to maintain their structural integrity. To improve the uniformity and strength of
the subgrade soils in this area of Texas, it is common to lime stabilize and compact the
expansive clay subgrade soils to a moisture- density that both improves subgrade strength
and stabilizes the clays. Lime series tests are generally performed to determine the
appropriate lime content necessary to achieve long term stabilization. In -place
compaction tests are also performed to confirm that the desired moisture — density of the
stabilized subgrade soil has been achieved.
The process of installing larger pavement sections such as those recommended for this
project including the process for stabilizing, compacting and confirming the results of the
process is much easier than when working in restricted areas and small isolated repairs.
Construction recommendations for each of these conditions are addressed separately in
the paragraphs below.
IN
Large Repair or Replacement Sections
Generally, larger pavement areas are easiest to access with proper equipment and install
correctly. In larger areas, the contractor generally has sufficient room to employ the use
of the proper stabilization and compaction equipment required to achieve the desired
subgrade uniformity and performance criteria. In larger areas, the contractor can
complete the work more efficiently and is generally not under as restricted time
constraints to open or reopen lanes. As such, proper subgrade preparation and testing can
be completed. The contractor has less opportunity to neglect or ignore proper subgrade
preparation as may often be the case with smaller or isolated repairs.
During construction, the frequency of moisture - density testing of the pavement subgrade
is typically one test per 10,000 sf or one test per 300 if of pavement lane. This frequency
assumes that the adjacent test locations represent all area between those tests. If the
subgrade has been uniformly prepared and no anomalies (due to irregular utility line
backfill installation or isolated wet areas) occur between the test locations, then this
assumption is valid. However, when conditions occur resulting in irregularities such as
small areas of rutting or pumping or other inconsistencies between or near these test
locations, then these non - uniform areas become likely areas for pavement failure.
Pavement failure is accelerated when additional water is allowed to access the subgrade
through joints or cracks in the pavement after the pavement is in service.
To address the potential non - uniformity of conditions between test locations, GME
recommends that once the subgrade preparation has been completed and tested and prior
to placement of the reinforcing steel, the City of Coppell should consider requiring the
contractor to thoroughly proof -roll the subgrade with a rubber tired traffic roller. The
entire width and length of the traffic lane should be rolled under the observation of a
qualified representative of a geotechnical firm or testing agency to confirm its uniformity
and stability. Any soft or weak areas identified with this process should be removed,
replaced and retested. The area should then again be confirmed by proofrolling. The
subgrade soil moisture should be maintained in the desired range until the pavement
system is in place. During periods of hot or extremely dry weather, the subgrade moisture
should be maintained at least 2 to 4 % wet of optimum moisture to reduce the potential
for excessive moisture absorption from the concrete in its plastic state and the related
excessive shrinkage cracking. Whenever possible, surficial water should be applied to the
subgrade from adjacent paving lanes and water trucks should be restricted from
trafficking directly on the finished and approved subgrade to minimize the potential for
creating weak areas from ponding and rutting due to excessive water and the wheel loads
from the water truck.
Small Repair or Replacement Sections
While there are can be a combination of factors that contribute to failure of the concrete
pavement system, it is our experience that section failure is rarely due to inadequate
compressive strength of the concrete. The uniformity and stability of subgrade support
19
for the pavement and the maintenance of that subgrade over the life of the pavement
system is critical to achieving the desired performance life of the pavement. This requires
that the subgrade strength be reasonably uniform beneath the entire section, relatively
stable under moderate changes in moisture, and protected from infiltration of water under
areas subjected to the cycles of traffic loading. Unstabilized expansive clays or those
conditions where joints and cracks exist in the pavement, allowing the surface infiltration
of water to the subgrade, will significantly reduce the performance of the subgrade or
base.
When repairing small areas of a concrete pavement system, there are several conditions
that tend to conflict with the desired installation methods and create premature failure of
the repairs. Some of these include:
• Difficulty achieving proper subgrade preparation due to limited access to
earthwork construction equipment and processes.
• Limited available construction duration due to requirement to reopen lanes
quickly.
• Delays due to the inefficiencies of placing concrete in multiple small widely
spaced areas.
When working within small repair areas, the contractor often cannot adequately access
the subgrade to either repair the subgrade or to scarify, wet and compact the subgrade in
order to develop uniform subgrade density and moisture beneath the pavement. Lime
stabilization of limited areas is often not practical when the size of the work area will not
allow the use of conventional lime application and stabilization equipment.
Repair of pavement failures will create the requirement for active paving lane closures in
order to complete the repair. It has been our experience that when working with multiple
small repairs in an active street, the client will frequently try and require the contractor to
minimize the lane closure duration. The closure restrictions further limit the ability of the
construction process to be performed correctly.
When a project consists of numerous widely spaced repairs, the actual time it takes to
complete concrete placement by individual concrete trucks is significantly longer than
conventional placement for new paving. The concrete placement delays associated with
moving between multiple repair locations generally result in undesired slump loss and the
addition of water by the contractor's field crew resulting in increased shrinkage cracking
or reduce concrete strength. Often, the client specifies higher strength mixes for small
repair areas in order to get the lanes open to traffic faster. If the mix is not designed to
allow for extended placement duration, then the problems identified above become
worse. When improper placed, these repair areas often become areas of premature failure
once subjected to repeated traffic loading.
20
Given the above constraints associated with installing small repair areas it may not be
practical to consider subgrade improvement methods that require stabilization or moisture
conditioning and recompaction of the existing clays. Since the subgrade or base is critical
to the performance of the pavement section, the solution must allow the contractor can
install the base system quickly, achieving the desired strength and uniformity with
minimal effort and potential for error, and also provide a base system that is more
resistant than lime stabilized subgrade to the adverse affect of weather. Our
recommendation for installing relatively small repair areas with the above constraints is
to remove approximately 8 inches of the existing subgrade soils, wet the underlying
subgrade, install a geotextile fabric over the subgrade, then install at least 8 inches of
TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 or 2, or Type D flex base compacted to at least 100%
of the Standard Proctor for that material. Dowel bars should be properly installed and
epoxied into the existing pavement section to provide load transfer across the new joint
between the existing pavement and repair sections. Consideration might also be given to
preforming the upper portion of this construction joint to allow for the installation of
sealant to reduce the potential for moisture intrusion.
Several benefits we have experienced with properly installing the flex base over the
fabric in lieu of lime stabilizing the subgrade include:
• Additional stiffiiess and uniformity of the base supporting the pavement
• More tolerant of changes in moisture and weather conditions
• Restriction of loss of fines or pumping at the joints
• Ease of installation and therefore faster installation
• Base source is manufactured and therefore material can be approved prior to
concrete removal.
• Testing can be performed and results determined immediately upon completion of
base reducing delays
Several issues that should be considered regarding the concrete placement for these small
repairs include:
• Providing a mix that will not only achieve the high early strength, but that can be
placed at the contractor's desired placement rate
• Reduced concrete load sizes depending on the contractor's placement rate and the
weather conditions
• Careful alignment and proper positioning of the load transfer dowels.
• Thorough and timely application of the curing membrane
A joint sawing plan (if applicable) that accounts for the weather conditions
(particularly hot weather periods) and type of mix being placed.
21
5. 0 QUALIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations in this report were developed from the information obtained from
the pavement cores and test borings which depict subsurface conditions only at the
specified locations and at the times indicated on the boring logs. Additionally, the
laboratory test results for selected soil samples relate only to the samples tested.
Pavement thickness and soil conditions at other locations may vary from the indicated
conditions and the nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the
course of construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-
evaluate the recommendations of this report after noting the characteristics of such
variation. Additionally, if there are any changes in the proposed construction, GME must
be contacted of the proposed revisions, we must be allowed to review the revisions and
we must be allowed to provide revisions to our recommendations if necessary to achieve
the same design criteria.
It is additionally recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the
plans and specifications so that comments can be provided regarding the interpretations
and implementation of the recommendations into the contract documents. It is further
recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations
during the pavement construction and earthwork phases of the proposed construction.
This report is intended for the sole use of the City of Coppell. The scope -of- services
performed in execution of this investigation may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of
other users, and any use or re -use of this document or its findings, conclusions, or
recommendations is at the risk of said user. GME Consulting Services, Inc. is not
responsible for conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on this
information.
Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our
recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties
either expressed or implied. This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirety and
with the express written permission of GME Consulting Services, Inc.
22
APPENDIX A- TEXT FIGURES, TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure 1 Site Vicinity and Topographic Map
Figure 2 Site Geologic Map
Table A -1 Pavement and Test Boring Summary Table
Figure 3 Boring Location Plan (Plan Divided into Figures 3A
through 3F)
Pavement Distress Photographs
E ,sT C -Pn
FILL
tf 1 y FaCt T"
n
0
Park ee
coxY_� .zs� nprELL CITY sD - AT 0 R T H L A K E
c 17
si
I°
l Norlh Lake. Park
II
HACfe{7 €R Y -- f,o!'`,
a ROa�
t
tr — 8M
50
GME
Ceofoeic Formation
Ko- Ozon Formation
Kau- Austin Chalk Formation
Kef- [.agle Ford Formation
Kwb- Woodbine Formation
Kgm- Grayson Marl and Main Street Limestone Undivided
Kpw- Pawpaw Formation
Qal- Alluvium Deposits
Qu- Quaternary Terrace Deposits
Qt- Fluvialdc Terrace Deposits
Project: 'pavement Investigation
Bell Line Road Figure 2
GME Coppeii, Texas
Scale: 1:250,000
Project Number: 11.04.0045 Site Geologic Map
' Date: May b, 2011 --
TABLE A -I — PAVEMENT AND TEST BORING SUMMARY TABLE
BELT LINE ROAD
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION
I -635 to Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Texas
GME Project No. 11.04.0045
Boring
No.
North or
South
(Direction)
Outside
Or
Inside
(Lane)
Boring
Location*
Concrete
Thickness,
Inches
Total
Boring
Depth, ft.
Lime-
Stabilized
Subgrade,
Yes or No
Lime
Stabilized
Layer
Thickness,
inches
Approximate
Fill Soil
Depth,
Feet
B -1
North
Outside
6605' South
9.2
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -3
North
Outside
5870' South
9.5
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -4
North
Outside
5045' South
9.3
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -5
North
Outside
4475' South
9.2
20
Yes
6 -8
2
B -6
North
Outside
4025' South
9.8
20
Yes
6 -8
2
B -8
North
Outside
3620' South
9.1
20
Yes
6 -8
4
B -10
North
Outside
3440' South
9.0
20
Yes
6 -8
3
B -12
North
Outside
3065' South
9.5
20
Yes
6 -8
6
B -13
North
Outside
2765' South
9.3
20
Yes
6 -8
4
B -14
North
Outside
2175' South
9.0
20
Yes
6 -8
2
B -15
North
Outside
1620' South
9.1
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -17
North
Outside
990' South
9.6
10
Yes
3 -5
2
B -18
South
Inside
300' South
9.7
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -19
South
Inside
990' South
9.6
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -20
South
Inside
1620' South
9.8
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -22
South
Inside
2175' South
9.5
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -23
South
Inside
2765' South
9.2
20
Yes
6 -8
4
B -25
South
Outside
3440' South
9.1
20
Yes
6 -8
3
B -29
South
Outside
4025' South
9.4
20
Yes
6 -8
6
B -30
South
Outside
5045' South
10.1
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -31
South
Outside
5870' South
9.6
10
Yes
6 -8
2
B -32
South
Inside
6065' South
9.2
10
Yes
6 -8
2
* Denotes distance in feet south of Denton Tap Road
z r
m
`D ® Q� rlD
0
1 . 11 0 N o
o 0 a o El
N O O.
N n = D
3 W
O
O
m O
m r 0
m o
m v
a o
E3
x
m
m
SOUTHWESTE N
BOULEVA EAST BELT LINE ROAD
III
C II td
rD
Z
o d d m
° rD o
yCD o
� 0
�c
0
a
o'
0
r
W
b
� O
Match Line
z r Match Line
I — — — — —
� T T
® Q� rCD
� v
Co� N
Z)-
0
o
0
I
o_ DII
can 2. 0 ■ SANDERS LOOP
3 m Rh
O q O
m r
o
0
m v
a o
E3
x
m
m
AIRLINE DRIVE
IN
e
W
m
r
Z
m
III
O
D
A � A
e�7 K
CD �:Y
C) d d
y � e
t�
0 c
IN
a
o'
■
0
ul; k7
r �
eD N A
-----------
r-r G.1
Match Line
z r Mat Line
o_ m
`D ® Q� rCD
m o • • ■
Co Z) N
I
a�
N O. O
N 0 •
3 m Rh
O O O
m r
o
0
m m
a o WRANGLER
E3
x
m
m •
• e
■
1 "SS
N W
W
■
b
� � m
N � 8
rD
C) d d z
m
O
Co
� � o
�c
o'
15" S
W_.
F•ri N A O
W (n
n �
r-r W
1
n
b
Match Line
z r
o_
`D ® Q� rID
o n U
Co� N�-
Co 3 . 0 a
N O. O
3 m Rh
O O O
53
m r
o
0
m v
a o
E3
x
m
m
15 "SS
LAKESHORE
III
O
■
✓� b
9X R
5 .
N o `° ■
r
N rD o �Z�'
CD �:Y
C) ■
H CD
a �*
O
r
o �
� d
b
Ma tch Line
N
J
J
W
m
r
H
r
z
m
A
0
Match Line
z r Match Line
® Q� m
W T
o n U
Co� N Z)-
I
a�
N O. O
3 m Rh
O O o
m r
o
0
m v
'o o
E3
x
m
m
W m
w �
0
66 "RCP
m
r
r
b Z
m
m
ro �r
iv rD
CD �:Y
o d d
DIVIDEND DRIVE
H CD
t�
� c
0
a
a
o'
� 0 0
0
54 "RCP
r �
o �
►D
� eD w
b
Match Line
z r Match Line
`D ® Q� rID
o n U)
Co� N �-
Co 3 . 0 a
3 W
O O p O
m r
o
a o m
E3 r
x H
� r
m
m
m
O
D
O
36 "RCP
W
W
w
N RJ
A � A
e�7 K
p rT ry�
N o w
o d d
H
HACKBERRY
� c
a
o'
ao
A
r•
U4 MSJ
l
n �
r-r w
It
1. Pavement Movement and Sealed Cracks- North Bound Lane Near B -5
2. Typical Sealed Cracks in Pavement- North Bound Lane Near B -5
3. Large Cracks in Pavement- North Bound Lane
4. Open Joint and Vertical Displacement of Pavement Lanes Near B -22
g r
�w�SS
5. View Looking West from B -1 toward Trees in Median Strip
6. Open Joint/ Vertical Displacement of Lanes- Northbound/ Inside Near B -32
8. Radial Crack Pattern in Pavement near Median Strip
7. Open Joint/ Vertical Displacement of Lanes- Southbound/ Inside Near B -32
APPENDIX B- TEST BORING RESULTS
Record of Subsurface Exploration Sheets (Borings B -1 through B -32 *)
Key to Symbols and Classifications - Soil
* Denotes refer to Figures 3A through 3F and Section 2.2.2 for actual borings drilled.
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -1 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/18/11 Date Completed: 5/18/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
Xxx
1
FILL - Tan, medium stiff, fat CLAY (CH), top
P: 1.0
32
70
24
46
6 - 8" lime treated _ 2.0
Tan, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few calcite crystals
2
P: 2.0
26
- tan and light gray, hard, few iron stains
below 4.0'
5
3
P: 4.5
29
71
24
47
5
- trace calcite below 6.0'
4
P: 4.5+
26
- very stiff, some calcite, blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 3.5
26
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B- 3 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/18/11 Date Completed: 5/18/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
1
FILL - Brown to dark brown, very stiff, fat
P: 4.0
27
76
26
50
CLAY (CH), some pebbles and limestone 2.0
fr agments, top 6 -8" lime treated
Dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace small
2
P 2.0
28
pebbles
- brown and tan, many small calcite crystals,
few iron stains below 4.0'
5
3
P: 1.8
27
5
- gray and brown below 6.0'
4
P: 2.0
33
65
18
47
- slightly blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 1.8
29
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B- 4 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/18/11 Date Completed: 5/18/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
1
FILL - Brown to dark brown, hard, fat CLAY
P: 4.5+
31
57
25
32
(C H), few pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Brown to dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few
pebbles
2
P: 1.5
27
- tan and gray, hard, many iron stains, some
sulfur deposits, slightly blocky below 4.0'
5
3
P: 4.5
25
5
- blocky below 6.0'
4
P:4.5+
19
62
19
43
5
P: 4.5+
20
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B- 5 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/18/11 Date Completed: 5/18/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
Xxx
1
FILL - Light brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace
P: 1.5
29
58
18
40
pe bbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Light brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), some iron
stains, trace small pebbles
2
P: 1.5
28
- light brown and gray, very stiff, trace calcite,
slightly blocky below 4.0'
5
3
P: 2.3
30
76
23
53
5
- stiff below 6.0'
4
P: 1.8
32
- hard, some sulfur deposits, many calcite
crystals, blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 4.5
24
70
23
47
10
10
6
P: 4.5+
25
15
15
- some calcite, blocky below 18.0'
7
P: 4.5+
23
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B- 6 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/18/11 Date Completed: 5/18/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few
P: 4.0
29
63
35
28
small pebbles and limestone fragments, top 2.0
6 - 8" lime treated
Dark brown to dark gray, very stiff, fat CLAY
2
P: 2.3
23
(CH), few small pebbles, trace calcite crystals
- dark brown, stiff, some pebbles and few iron
stains below 4.0'
5
3
P: 2.0
26
65
16
49
5
- gray and tan, very stiff, some iron stains,
slightly blocky below 6.0'
4
P: 2.8
28
- blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 3.8
26
10
10
- some calcite crystals below 13.0'
6
P: 4.0
25
15
15
- hard below 18.0'
7
P:4.5+
24
75
22
53
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B- 8 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/19/11 Date Completed: 5/19/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES Cn LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° z ° w
W O F w
In F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No groundwater seepage o a LL LL z w � U N
>- cn — ~
encountered during drilling. Water at 12.0' upon z > Cnn i c'n K _ cL Cn °
LL ~ Z fn fn LL
(n
completion. v } , J J U 0 in
O Z O Z Z cn LU F C1 J J cn =
a a
Q Q m O m z W o >- O p a a z w
O
DEPTH
DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n cn cn z a ° cn ° a LL PL PI °
FT
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
'g:`A:
1
FILL - Light brown, hard, fat CLAY (CH), few
P: 4.5+
29
65
33
32
rock fragments, top 6 -8" lime treated
- light brown to brown, some limestone
fragments and pebbles below 2.0'
2
P: 4.5
28
4.0
Dark brown and gray, stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
5
some pebbles, few iron stains
3
P: 1.8
24
64
15
49
5
- very stiff below 6.0'
4
P: 2.3
25
73
18
55
- gray to light brown, stiff, few calcite crystals,
pebbles below 8.0'
5
P: 1.5
28
10
10
- brown, very stiff, trace small pebbles below
13.0'
6
P: 2.5
27
15
15
- light brown and gray, some iron stains
below 18.0'
7
P: 2.0
31
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -10 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/19/11 Date Completed: 5/19/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Tan, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few
P: 3.0
36
67
34
33
pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated
- gray, dark brown and tan below 2.0'
3.0
2
P: 2.5
22
57
15
42
Gray and brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few
small pebbles
- brown and tan, few iron stains below 4.0'
5
3
P: 4.0
19
5
- brown, some pebbles below 6.0'
4
P: 3.3
19
64
16
48
- trace pebbles below 8.0'
5
P: 3.0
26
10
10
- gray, dark brown and tan, stiff, few small
pebbles below 13.0'
6
P: 2.0
27
15
15
- gray brown, organic color below 18.0'
7
P: 1.5
32
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -12 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/19/11 Date Completed: 5/19/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: GM ENTERPRISES y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using direct push W w W
drilling equipment and 2' Shelby tubes. ° w °z w
W O F w
m F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w >-� v U N
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w in 5j K cL w o LL
Z
v o z o ZZ`j Wo ° ° a a x
d d ° J J y
Z a a z w
O Q Q m O m O W O >- O p Cn
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° cn ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
1
FILL - Brown, soft, fat CLAY (CH), few pebbles,
P: 0.5
29
68
33
35
top 6 -8" lime treated
- gray and dark brown, very stiff, some
pebbles, trace concrete fragments below 2.0'
2
P: 2.3
27
- dark brown, gray and tan, few limestone
fragments, some pebbles below 4.0'
5
3
P: 3.0
22
59
14
45
5
6.0
Dark brown and tan, hard, fat CLAY (CH), few
small pebbles and calcite crystals
4
P: 4.5
26
- tan, very stiff, many calcite crystals, few iron
stains, slightly blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 2.5
26
65
19
46
10
10
- tan and gray, stiff, few iron stains below
13.0'
6
P: 1.5
25
15
15
- light gray and tan, abundant calcite, blocky
below 18.0'
7
P: 2.0
29
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -13 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/31/11 Date Completed: 5/31/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° 2 W °z W
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
0
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn a o z o Zz`n- Wo ° ° a a x
CL y ° y
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
P: 3.3
27
61
20
41
some limestone fragments and pebbles, top
6 -8" lime treated
- gray and dark brown, trace concrete
2
P: 2.3
27
63
16
47
fragments and few iron stains below 2.0'
4.0
Dark brown to gray, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
5
few small calcite crystals and pebbles
3
P: 4.0
25
5
- gray and light brown, stiff, many calcite
crystals below 6.0'
4
P: 2.0
29
- light brown, very stiff, trace calcite crystals,
few iron stains, blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 4.0
28
79
20
59
10
10
- some iron stains below 13.0'
6
P: 3.8
31
15
15
- many calcite crystals below 18.0'
7
P: 3.8
32
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -14 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/31/11 Date Completed: 5/31/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° 2 W °z W
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
0
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn a o z o Zz`n- Wo ° ° a a x
CL y ° y
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, hard, fat CLAY (CH), trace
P: 4.5+
30
68
26
42
pe bbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace small
pebbles
2
P: 2.0
32
- brown, very stiff, few calcite crystals, trace
pebbles below 4.0'
5
3
P: 2.3
29
70
18
52
5
- brown and tan, some calcite crystals and
iron stains, slightly blocky below 6.0'
4
P: 3.0
28
- light gray and brown, few calcite crystals,
iron stains, blocky below 8.0'
5
P: 2.5
26
71
18
53
10
10
6
P: 2.3
33
15
15
- hard, some sand below 18.0'
7
P: 4.5+
28
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -15 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/1/11 Date Completed: 6/1/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° 2 W °z W
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
0
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn a o z o Zz`n- Wo ° ° a a x
CL y ° y
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Brown, hard, fat CLAY (CH), some small
P: 4.5+
26
63
32
31
an large pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), some small
pebbles, few fine roots
2
P: 1.5
32
82
24
58
- trace calcareous deposits below 4.0'
5
3
P: 1.8
31
82
21
61
5
- some calcite crystals below 6.0'
4
P: 2.0
30
- gray and brown, very stiff, trace iron stains
below 2.0'
5
P: 2.8
28
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -17 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/1/11 Date Completed: 6/1/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST Cn LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° 2 W °z W
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z o
Groundwater Information: Groundwater seepage m r D W LL z W LL � N 1=
z cn cn cn
encountered at 6.0' during drilling. Boring dry upon > ? Z w W
LL ~ LL
completion. Cn J J U O Z O Z Z fn C3 F CJ J J cn =
CL a
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ° in ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
1
FILL - Dark brown and gray, stiff, fat CLAY
P: 2.0
23
72
15
57
(CH), some pebbles, trace limestone 2.0
fr agments, top 3 -5" lime treated
Dark gray brown, hard, fat CLAY (CH), some
2
P: 4.3
21
pebbles, calcareous nodules, trace calcite
crystals
- dark brown and gray, very stiff, many small
5
pebbles below 4.0'
3
P: 3.3
22
66
16
50
5
_
- brown to gray, stiff, some iron stains, trace
calcite crystals below 6.0'
4
P: 2.0
29
- very stiff below 8.0'
5
P: 3.3
29
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -18 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/1/11 Date Completed: 6/1/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° 2 W °z W
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
0
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn a o z o Zz`n- Wo ° ° a a x
CL y ° y
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, hard, fat CLAY (CH), trace
P: 4.5+
30
59
33
26
s mall pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), some small
pebbles
2
P: 1.8
27
73
25
48
5
3
P: 1.3
28
5
- dark brown and brown, few small pebbles
and iron stains below 6.0'
4
P: 1.8
26
65
22
43
- gray and brown, very stiff, trace calcareous
crystals and iron stains below 8.0'
5
P: 2.5
27
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -19 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/1/11 Date Completed: 6/1/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° 2 W °z W
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
0
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn a o z o Zz`n- Wo ° ° a a x
CL y ° y
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
P: 3.0
29
68
41
27
fe small pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few small
pebbles
2
P: 2.0
31
5
3
P: 2.0
31
89
25
64
5
4
P: 2.0
30
- gray and tan, very stiff, some calcite crystals
and iron stains below 8.0'
5
P: 3.3
28
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -20 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/1/11 Date Completed: 6/1/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
P: 3.8
20
55
35
20
so me pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace
pebbles
2
P: 2.5
29
67
19
48
5
3
P: 2.3
28
67
19
48
5
- few pebbles and calcareous nodules below
6.0'
4
P: 2.3
27
- gray and brown, few iron stains below 8.0'
5
P: 2.3
26
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -22 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/1/11 Date Completed: 6/1/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
P: 4.0
34
65
35
30
fe gravel, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), many small
pebbles, few fine roots, trace iron stains
2
P: 1.5
29
5
3
P: 1.8
28
5
- brown to dark brown, some pebbles and
calcareous nodules below 6.0'
4
P: 2.0
26
82
23
59
- brown to gray, many pebbles, some iron
stains, trace sand below 8.0'
5
P: 1.3
25
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -23 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/2/11 Date Completed: 6/2/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), some
P: 3.3
34
62
32
30
pebbles and small gravel, top 6 -8" lime treated
A
- dark brown, trace calcareous nodules below
2.0'
2
P: 4.0
19
51
14
37
4.0
Brown and gray, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), some
5
small pebbles and few calcite crystals
3
P: 1.5
29
5
- slightly blocky below 6.0'
4
P: 2.0
27
69
20
49
- dark brown, brown and gray below 8.0'
5
P: 2.0
28
10
10
- light brown, very stiff, some iron stains, few
calcite seams, blocky below 13.0'
6
P: 3.8
32
76
22
54
15
15
7
P: 4.0
31
20-
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
20
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -25 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/2/11 Date Completed: 6/2/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Dark brown, hard, fat CLAY (CH), some
P: 4.5+
24
58
28
30
limestone fragments and gravel, top 6 -8" lime
treated
- very stiff with gravel below 2.0' 3.0
2
P: 3.3
20
Dark brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), few small
pebbles
- dark brown, brown and gray, few calcite
5
crystals, pebbles and iron stains below 4.0'
3
P: 2.0
30
67
21
46
5
- brown to dark brown below 6.0'
4
P: 1.8
30
- brown, few calcite crystals below 8.0'
5
P: 1.3
27
71
20
51
10
10
- very stiff, some calcite crystals, few small
pebbles and iron stains below 13.0'
6
P: 3.3
26
15
15
- light brown, hard, blocky below 18.0'
7
P: 4.5
26
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -29 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/2/11 Date Completed: 6/2/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
1
FILL - Light brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
P: 4.0
30
71
39
32
some pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated
2
P: 2.3
31
70
24
46
- dark brown, stiff, some limestone fragments
and pebbles below 4.0'
5
3
P: 1.8
23
5
6.0
Brown to dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
few roots and pebbles, trace sand
4
P: 3.0
24
54
17
37
- stiff, some small pebbles below 8.0'
5
P: 1.3
25
10
10
- light brown, hard, some iron stains, blocky
below 13.0'
6
P: 4.5+
26
15
15
P: 4.5
26
72
23
49
7
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 20.0'
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
m CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -30 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/2/11 Date Completed: 6/2/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
1
FILL - Brown, medium stiff, fat CLAY (CH),
P: 1.0
31
69
32
37
tr ace small pebbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Brown, stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace small
pebbles
2
P 2.0
28
- light brown and gray, few small pebbles and
iron stains below 4.0'
5
3
P: 2.0
33
79
27
52
5
- very stiff, trace calcite crystals, blocky below
6.0'
4
P: 4.0
26
66
22
44
- hard below 8.0'
5
P: 4.5+
24
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -31 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 6/2/11 Date Completed: 6/2/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 08
1
FILL - Brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace
P: 4.0
31
77
44
33
pe bbles, top 6 -8" lime treated _ 2.0
Brown, very stiff, fat CLAY (CH), trace small
pebbles
2
P: 3.0
25
61
16
45
- some calcite below 4.0'
5
3
P: 3.3
25
5
- light brown and gray below 6.0'
4
P: 2.3
27
5
P: 3.0
28
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION I
A
Client: CITY OF COPPELL Boring No.: B -32 Page 1 of 1
Project: BELT LINE ROAD PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION Project No.: 11.04.0045
1 -635 NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD Approved By: D. ZIOLKOWSKI, P.E.
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA
Date Started: 5/31/11 Date Completed: 5/31/11 W ATTERBERG
Drilling Co.: CORE TEST y LIMITS ^
Drilling Method(s): Boring advanced using continuous W w W
flight auger drilling equipment. ° w °z w
W O F w
M F 2 U F Z } c
Groundwater Information: No seepage encountered o a LL LL z ° w v U N
°
during drilling. Dry upon completion. z > w � ? w W o LL
Z
Cn 0 o z o Zz`n- Wo ° a a x
CL y ° y
a
LU
O Q Q m O m z'0 wo p a a z w
DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM `n `n `n z a ~ ° in ~ ° a LL PL PI °
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 0.8
xxx
1
FILL - Dark brown and brown, very stiff, fat
P: 3.3
29
59
31
28
CLAY (CH), few small gravel, top 6 -8" lime 2.0
tr eated
Brown and dark brown, very stiff, fat CLAY
2
P: 2.5
25
(CH), few small pebbles, trace calcite crystals
- light gray and brown, hard, few small
pebbles and calcite crystals below 4.0'
5
3
P:4.5+
23
76
20
56
5
- blocky, some calcite crystals below 6.0'
4
P: 4.5+
22
5
P: 4.5+
21
No Void Space Beneath Concrete
Bottom of Test Boring at 10.0'
15
15
20
20
V WATER INITIAL NO RECOVERY BAG SAMPLE N - STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
1 WATER FINAL m ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER P - HAND PENETROMETER
J] CUTTINGS 0 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES ® DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON T - TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER
I CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS -SOIL
Soil descriptions noted on Records of Subsurface
Exploration (boring logs) are based on Standard
Penetration Test results, visual /manual examination of
soil samples, previous experience with similar soil
types in the area, and the results of field and
laboratory testing on selected soil samples. This
classification sheet is based in part on ASTM D 2487-
92 and ASTM D 2488 -90. The criteria, descriptive
terms and definitions used are as follows:
TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
Dark gray, hard, fat CLAY (CH) with trace fine sand.
Tan and light gray, hard, lean CLAY (CL) with
calcareous nodules.
Tan, dense, fine SILTY SAND (SM) with trace fine
gravel.
DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY
Coarse - Grained Soils
Relative Density
of Coarse — Grained Soil
Penetration Resistance
No. blows/ft.'
Very Loose
0 to 4
Loose
5 to 10
Medium Dense
11 to 30
Dense
31 to 50
Very Dense
Over 50
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS BY GRADATION
COMPONENTS
Major soil components: Upper case letters
Penetration resistance determined in the field by Standard
Penetration Test (SPT, ASTM D 1586): Number of blows required to
drive a standard 2.0 -inch outside diameter split -spoon sampler 12
inches into undisturbed soil by means of a 140 - poound weight falling
freely through a vertical distance of 30 inches. The sampler is
normally driven in three successive 6 -inch increments. The total
number of blows required to drive the sampler over second and third
6 -inch increments of penetration is the Standard Penetration
Resistance, N.
Fine- Grained Soils
Consistency
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength (tsf)
Sieve Limits
Very soft
lbiaterial
Definition
Soft
.25 to .50
2 to 4
Fractions
Upper
Lower
Stiff
1.00 to 2.00
Gravel
Material passing
Coarse
3"
3 /4
Over 4.00
though the 3" sieve
& retained on the
Fine
3 /4 "
No. 4
No. 4 sieve
Sand
Material passing
Coarse
No. 4
No. 10
the No. 4 sieve and
retained on the No.
Medium
No. 10
No. 40
200 sieve.
Fine
No. 40
No. 200
Silt
Material passing
the No. 200 sieve
which is also non -
plastic in character
No. 200
and exhibits little or
no strength when
dried
Clay
Material passing
the No. 200 sieve
which can also be
made to exhibit
plasticity within a
No. 200
certain range of
water contents and
which exhibits
considerable
strength when air
dried.
COMPONENTS
Major soil components: Upper case letters
Penetration resistance determined in the field by Standard
Penetration Test (SPT, ASTM D 1586): Number of blows required to
drive a standard 2.0 -inch outside diameter split -spoon sampler 12
inches into undisturbed soil by means of a 140 - poound weight falling
freely through a vertical distance of 30 inches. The sampler is
normally driven in three successive 6 -inch increments. The total
number of blows required to drive the sampler over second and third
6 -inch increments of penetration is the Standard Penetration
Resistance, N.
Fine- Grained Soils
Consistency
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength (tsf)
Penetration
Resistance (blows per
ft.) 3
Very soft
Less than .25
0 to 2
Soft
.25 to .50
2 to 4
Medium Stiff
.50 to 1.00
4 to 8
Stiff
1.00 to 2.00
8 to 15
Very Stiff
2.00 to 4.00
15 to 30
Hard
Over 4.00
Over 30
2 Determined in the field by Soil Test pocket penetrometer test or in
lab by unconfined compression test.
3 Determined in the field by Standard Penetration when no other
strength test data is available.
COLOR
Dark gray, brown, tan, etc.
Secondary components: Adjective used (if > 30% plus
No. 200 for fine- grained soils; if >
12% minus No. 200 for coarse -
grained soils
Third components: "with" used (if third component
comprises 15% to 29% plus No.
200 for fine- grained soils; > 12%
to 15% of total for coarse - grained
soils
Other components: "trace" to "little" used sometimes
(if 1 % to 15% of total)
OTHER DESCRIPTIVE TERMS
The soils are also classified by the criteria of the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), with the appropriate group
symbol indicated in parentheses for each soil description.
Fill: Soils indicated to have been recently placed
by man
Probable fill: Soils indicated to most likely be filled on the
basis of stratigraphy, presence of foreign
matter, etc.
Possible fill: Soils which could possible be filled on the
basis of visual soil texture, stratigraphy, etc.
APPENDIX C- CONCRETE CORE RESULTS
Concrete Core Photographs (Borings B -1 through B -32 *)
Table C -1 — Concrete Core Test Data
* Denotes refer to Figures 3A through 3F and Section 2.2.2 for actual cores drilled.
W
M 1 idne WMAI
I'di I.f P"Vfll
A Will[Irl
JL M
1. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -1
3. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-4
2. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-3
4. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-5
5. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -6
6. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -8
7. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -10
8. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -12
H 1m. *14
/,•zm��
h0� Q2���■
B h of Ri.,411
■���� ;�mir
■� %1� |`�� m %�
§
J 2
�
13 Concrete Pavcme tCoe at Boring RQ7
± Concrete Pavement Coc& Boring B13
!¢ Concrete Pavement Core at Boring «Q4
I£ Concrete Pavement Core at Boring RQ5
Pi Omd A0
UmirdlWOOMM
G's I E
11-HAW 4.
I it
M O."W Rbw
Vin t"Irm
IWILwalowl
C.Ml NM*-,Tl Nil
C:
(*44 %M, qV1
F
PkW I W.
rj. C hwH
IM% 6-. is-16fifil
RiLMI 10f ICI; "ll
Ml ni
L
�r i "I
J
13. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-18
14. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -
15. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-20
16. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-22
9,611 1 Will R"i
r.m ,% , I IILI- M,
1®y1 ill Vl� #mIF"
I Or 'll I1- ji 1
Owal
mi
m Wilill
Fna r,tILInIk- l
E
19. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -29
17. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -23
18. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -25
20. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B -30
p6.b Rood
r*-' rM= 14 1
1 wi . r kagohms
GNIL hv"i %LL,
04-04-AMF
C to, V III k. M- I I
0)
21. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-31
L
7
0
NIP Ill i L
4t.4,1111 L
ref -° 7
16
1.
22. Concrete Pavement Core at Boring B-32
Pavement Investigation
Belt Line Road
IH -635 North to Denton Tap Road
Coppell, Texas
Table C -1
Concrete Core Test Data
GME Project No. 11.04.0045
Core
Dia. (in)
Length Before
Capping (in)
Length After
Capping (in)
L/D
Ratio
Corr.
Factor
Total
Load (lbs)
Corrected
Compress Str (psi
B -13
4.7
8.43
8.66
1.84
0.98
103200
5853
B -15
4.7
8.81
9.77
1.94
0.99
117960
6731
4.7
9.10
9.43
2.01
1.00
96490
5562
4.7
9.09
9.18
1.95
0.99
130900
7515
L-2
4.7
9.28
9.54
2.03
1.00
170050
9841
4.7
8.49
8.78
1.87
1.87
199940
6830
4.7
8.85
9.25
1.97
1.97
150528
8642