The URL can be used to link to this page

MA1009-SY120713GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY LAKE AND CHANNEL INVESTIGATION ANDY BROWN PARK PARKVIEW BOULEVARD COPPELL, TEXAS Presented To; Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. July 2012 PROJECT NO. 131 -'I 2 -i 16 CAV ENGINEERING, INC. July 5, 2012 Report No, 131 -12 -116 Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. 1100 Macon Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Attn:: Mr, Kyle Dykes, P.E. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY LAKE AND CHANNEL INVESTIGATION ANDY BROWN PARK PARKVIEW BOULEVARD COPPELL, TEXAS Dear Mr, Dykes: 7636 Pebble Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76118 www.cmjengr.com Submitted here are the results of a geotechnical engineering study for the referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with CMJ Proposal 11 -3524 dated April 12, 2012. Formal authorization to initiate the geotechnical services was provided by Mr. Michael A, Jones, P.E., President of Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. on May 2, 2012. Engineering analyses and recommendations are contained in the text section of the report.. Results of our field and laboratory services are included in the appendix of the report. We would appreciate the opportunity to be considered for providing geotechnical engineering services for any future projects. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc.. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further service at this time. Respectfully submitted, CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. TEXAS FIRM REGIS IRATION NO. F -9177 James P. Sappington IV, P,E. Project Engineer Texas o. 97402 OF.TF�" ®S 11 .. :.........................�® JAMS P- gAPPINGTON, .. j f $1:. 974 02 r f10ENS�O.•��a�.• %% ...... L copies submitted (3) Mr. Kyle Dykes, P.E.; Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. (mail) (1) Mr. Kyle Dykes, P E., Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. (email) Phone (817) 284 -9400 Fk (817) 5589 -9993 ?ylct:o (817) 589 =9992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -3 4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 5 5,0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS -------------------------------------------------------- ..._. ...---------------------- - - - - -9 6..0 EARTHWORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -11 7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -15 8.0 REPORT CLOSURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -15 APPENDIX A Plate Planof Borings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - -A.1 Unified Soil Classification System ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.2 Key to Classification and Symbols ----------------------------------------------------------------------- — -------------- A..3 Logsof Borings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- A.4 — A.10 Particle Size Distribution Reports ------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ------ - - - --- A.11 —A.12 Direct Shear Test Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- A..13 — A..18 APPENDIX B Plate SlopeStability Analyses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.. 1 — B. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The project site is located within Andy Brown Park East at 260 East Parkway Boulevard in Coppell, Texas. The project, as currently planned, consists of investigating the existing slope slippage and erosion areas occurring along the banks of the large lake within the park. New lake edge treatment with either modular block wall or turf reinforcement is planned, along with stabilization of both the existing spillway and inlet channel between the large lake and Parkway Boulevard. New walls on the order of 4 feet are anticipated around the southern lake shore. Plate A.1, Plan of Borings, depicts the project vicinity and location of the exploration borings.. The purpose of this geotechnical engineering study has been to determine the general subsurface conditions, evaluate the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered, analyze slope conditions, and provide recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for remedial measures to be designed by Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. To accomplish its intended purposes, the study has been conducted in the following phases: (1) drilling sample borings to determine the general subsurface conditions and to obtain samples for testing; (2) performing laboratory tests on appropriate samples to determine pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials; and (3) performing engineering analyses, using the field and laboratory data, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction.. The design is currently in progress and the locations and /or elevations of the structure could change.. The recommendations contained in this report are based on data supplied by Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Once the final design is near completion (80- percent to 90- percent stage), it is recommended that CiUiJ Engineering, inc.. be retained to review those portions of the construction documents pertaining to the geotechnical recommendations, as a means to determine that our recommendations have been interpreted as intended. 1.3 Report Format The text of the report is contained in Sections 1 through 8.. All plates and large tables are contained in Appendix A. The alpha- numeric plate and table numbers identify the appendix in Report Igo 131-12-116 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. which they appear.. Small tables of less than one page in length may appear in the body of the text and are numbered according to the section in which they occur.. Units used in the report are based on the English system and may include tons per square foot (tsf), kips (1 kip = 1,000 pounds), kips per square foot (ksf), pounds per square foot (psf), pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and pounds per square inch (psi).. 2.1 Field Exploration Subsurface materials at the project site were explored by seven (7) vertical soil borings.. Borings B -1 and B -2 were drilled to depths of 40 to 50 feet while the remaining borings were drilled to 20 feet.. The borings were drilled using continuous and intermittent sampling and continuous flight auger methods at the approximate locations shown on the Plan of Borings, Plate A.1. The boring logs are included on Plates AA through A..10 and keys to classifications and symbols used on the logs are provided on Plates A..2 and A..3.. Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils were obtained with nominal 3 -inch diameter thin - walled (Shelby) tube samplers at the locations shown on the logs of borings. The Shelby tube sampler consists of a thin - walled steel tube with a sharp cutting edge connected to a head equipped with a ball valve threaded for rod connection. The tube is pushed into the soil by the hydraulic pulldown of the drilling rig. The soil specimens were extruded from the tube in the field, logged, tested for consistency with a hand penetrometer, sealed, and packaged to limit loss of moisture. The consistency of cohesive soil samples was evaluated in the field using a calibrated hand penetrometer. In this test a 0..25 -inch diameter piston is pushed into the relatively undisturbed sample at a constant rate to a depth of 0.25 inch. The results of these tests, in tsf, are tabulated at respective sample depths on the log.. When the capacity of the penetrometer is exceeded, the value is tabulated as 4.5+ To evaluate the relative density and consistency of the harder formations, a modified version of the Texas Cone Penetration test was performed at selected locations.. Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) Test Method Tex -132 -E specifies driving a 3 -inch diameter cone with a 170 -pound hammer freely falling 24 inches. This results in 340 foot - pounds of energy for each Report No. 131 -12 -118 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 2 blow.. This method was modified by utilizing a 140 -pound hammer freely falling 30 inches. This results in 350 foot - pounds of energy for each hammer blow.. In relatively soft materials, the penetrometer cone is driven 1 foot and the number of blows required for each 6 -inch penetration is tabulated at respective test depths, as blows per 6 inches on the logs.. In hard materials (rock or rock - like), the penetrometer cone is driven with the resulting penetrations, in inches, recorded for the first and second 50 blows, a total of 100 blows.. The penetration for the total 100 blows is recorded at the respective testing depths on the boring logs. Ground -water observations during and after completion of the borings are shown on the upper right of the boring logs.. Upon completion of the borings, the bore holes were backfilled with soil cuttings and plugged at the surface by hand tamping. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory soil tests were performed on selected representative samples recovered from the borings.. In addition to the classification tests (liquid limits, plastic limits, and gradations), moisture content, unconfined compressive strength, and unit weight tests were performed.. Results of the laboratory classification tests, moisture content, unconfined compressive strength, and unit weight tests conducted for this project are included on the boring logs. Particle size analyses are included on Plates A..11 and A.12. Three direct shear tests with associated residual direct shear tests were performed within the overburden soils. The shear tests were performed in order to obtain strength parameters of the soils in their existing state. The results of the direct shear tests are presented on Plates A..13 through A..18.. The above laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTIR procedures, or generally accepted practice. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Soil Conditions Specific types and depths of subsurface strata encountered at the boring locations are shown on � the boring logs in Appendix A. The generalized subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the borings are discussed below. Note that depths on the borings refer to the depth from the existing grade or Report No, 131 -12 -116 CMJ ENGINEERING,. INC.. 3 ground surface present at the time of the investigation, and the boundaries between the various soil types are approximate. Fill materials are noted at the surface in Boring B -1 extending to a depth of 7 feet.. The fill consists of dark brown and reddish brown sandy clays with gravel.. Natural soils encountered consist of dark brown and brown silty clays and clays overlying brown, light brown and gray sandy clays, silty sandy clays, and clayey sands.. Calcareous nodules are typically present with few exceptions throughout the soils encountered, with select zones containing ironstone nodules. Borings B -3 through B -7 were terminated within the sandy clays, silty sandy clays, and clayey sands at 20 feet. Gravel with sand is noted from 32 to 33 feet in Boring B -2. The clay soils encountered are stiff to hard in consistency (soil basis), with pocket penetrometer values of 1..5 to over 4..5 tsf. Soft to firm soils are noted at the 19- to 20 -foot depth in Borings B -3, B -4, and B -7, with pocket penetrometer readings of 0..5 to 1..25 tsf. The various soils encountered in the borings had tested Liquid Limits (LL) ranging from 27 to 61 with Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from 14 to 42 and are classified as SC, CL and CH by the USCS.. Tested unit weight values were 90 to 114 pcf and unconfined compressive strengths varied from 2,000 to 4,410 psf. Dark gray shale is present in Borings B -1 and B -2 at depths of 23'/2 and 33 feet below existing grade, respectively. The dark gray shale contains limestone seams below 37 feet in Boring B -2 and is soft to moderately hard (sedimentary rock basis) with Texas Cone Penetrometer values of 2% to 6 inches per 100 blows.. Borings B -1 and B -2 were terminated within the dark gray shale at 40 to 50 feet. 3.2 Ground -Water Observations The borings were drilled using continuous flight augers in order to observe ground -water seepage during drilling. Ground -water seepage was encountered during drilling in Borings B -1 through B -5 at 10 to 18 feet below existing grade. Ground -water also was observed in these borings at the completion of drilling operations at 8 to 12 feet.. Borings B -6 and B -7 were dry during drilling and at completion of drilling operations.. Table 3..2 -1 summarizes water level data. While it is not possible to accurately predict the magnitude of subsurface water fluctuation that might occur based upon these short -term observations, it should be recognized that ground -water conditions will vary with fluctuations in rainfall. Seepage near the observed levels should be anticipated throughout the year. Report No. 131 -12 -116 4 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE 3.2 -1 Ground -Water Observations Boring No. Seepage During Drilling (ft.) Water at Completion (ft.) B -1 11 12 B -2 18 12 B -3 10 8 B-4 12'/2 9 B -5 10'/2 11 B -6 Dry Dry B -7 Dry Dry Ground -water may occur within granular zones or particularly after periods of extended rainfall.. Ground -water encountered with depth may possess moderate hydrostatic pressure, as indicated by water level readings in Borings B -2 through 134. Fluctuations of the ground -water level can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall; site topography and runoff; hydraulic conductivity of soil strata; and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. During wet periods of the year, seepage can occur in more permeable strata. The possibility of ground -water level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. Due to the variable subsurface conditions, long -term observations would be necessary to more accurately evaluate the ground -water level.. Such observations would require installation of piezometer or observation wells which are sealed to prevent the influence of surface water. 4.1 Expansive Soil Movements The expansive soils encountered at this site can shrink and swell considerably as the soil moisture content fluctuates during seasonal wet and dry cycles. Additionally, the site environment is impacted by grading and drainage, landscaping, ground -water conditions, paving and many other factors which affect the structure during and after construction.. Therefore, the amount of soil movement is difficult to determine due to the many unpredictable variables involved. Estimates of soil movements for this site have been performed using data from the Texas Department of Transportation (TX -Dot ) procedure TEX- 1 24 -E for estimating Potential Vertical Rise Report No,, 131 -12 -116 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 5 (PVR) and using engineering judgment and experience.. Vertical soil movements on the order of 3'/2 to 4'/2 inches or less have been estimated for the soils encountered, as the soils undergo moisture changes. Below depths of 3 to 4 feet around the lake shore, expansive soil movements are estimated at 13/4 inches. 4.2 Retaining Structures 4.2.1 General Retaining Wall Considerations Five geotechnical design criteria must be satisfied in the selection of the type and configuration of the retaining walls. These criteria are; the wall must have an acceptable factor of safety with respect to (1) overturning failure, (2) a sliding (translation) failure, (3) a bearing capacity failure, and (4) a global (deep- seated) slope failure. In addition, (5) the deformation of the wall caused by deflection from earth pressure, and from settlement or heave of the foundation soils or backfill soils, must be within tolerable limits during the functional life of the structure. 4.2.2 Foundations The retaining wall foundations may be founded atop natural soils which will be firm to stiff using shallow spread or continuous footings. The retaining wall foundations may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1.5 ksf. A minimum footing dimension of 2 teet is recommenaea.. in addition, the footing should be placed a minimum of 2 feet below lowest adjacent grade.. Excavation for the footing base will need to incorporate dewatering to keep the excavation free of excess water. In addition, the water table should be lowered to a depth of 2 feet below the proposed excavation to prevent excavation base sands from becoming a "quick condition. It should be noted that retaining wall foundations are typically subjected to non - uniform pressure across the foundation, and possibly negative pressure (separation of foundation from soil) under a portion of the foundation, due to the overturning moment induced by the lateral earth pressures. The allowable foundation pressures given above are for the maximum pressure induced by the foundation loads, and not the average pressure under the foundation base.. The horizontal bases of the footings will develop resistance to sliding by means of a combination of friction and adhesion (for cohesive foundation materials). Given the nature of the foundation materials, an adhesion of 400 psf may be used for earth formed footings. An ultimate friction factor of 0.3 may be used to calculate sliding resistance of the footings bearing on site soils.. Passive earth pressure resistance should be neglected.. Report No. 131 -12 -116 M CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. Foundations for the retaining walls designed in accordance with these recommendations will have a minimum factor of safety of 3 with respect to a bearing capacity failure, and should experience a total settlement of 1 inch or less and a differential settlement of Y2 inch or less, after construction.. 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressure 4.3.1 Equivalent Fluid Pressures Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls will depend on a variety of factors, including the type of soils behind the wall, the condition of the soils, and the drainage conditions behind the wall. Recommended lateral earth pressures expressed as equivalent fluid pressures, per foot of wall height, are presented in Table 4.3..1 -1 for a wall with a level backfill behind the top of the wall. The equivalent fluid pressure for an undrained condition should be used if a drainage system is not present to remove water trapped in the backfill and behind the wall. Pressures are provided for at- rest and active earth pressure conditions. In order to allow for an active condition the top of the wall(s) must deflect on the order of 0..4 percent. For the select fill or free draining granular backfill these values assume that a "full' wedge of the material is present behind the wall.. The wedge is defined where the wall backfill limits extend outward at least 2 feet from the base of the wall and then upward on a 1 H:2V slope. For narrower backfill widths of granular or select fill soils, the equivalent fluid pressures for the on -site soils should be used. TABLE 4.3.1 -1 — Equivalent Fluid Pressures At -Rest Equivalent Active Equivalent Backfill Material Fluid Pressure (pcf) Fluid Pressure (pcf) Drained Undrained Drained Undrained Excavated on -site clay or clay fill 100 110 85 100 material Select fill or on -site soils meeting 65 90 50 85 material specifications Free draining granular backfill 50 90 35 80 material 4.3.2 Wall Backfill Material Requirements Granular Wall Backfill. All free draining granular wall backfill material should be a crushed stone, sandigravei mixture, or sand /crushed stone mixture. The material should have less than 3 percent Report Na. 131 - 12-116 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC.. 7 passing the No.. 200 sieve and less than 30 percent passing the No. 40 sieve.. The minus No. 40 sieve material should be non - plastic.. Granular wall backfill should not be water jetted during installation. Select Fill: All wall select backfill should consist of clayey sand and /or sandy clay material with a plasticity index of 16 or less, with a liquid limit not exceeding 35. The select fill should be placed in maximum 8 -inch lifts and compacted to between 95 and 100 percent of Standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698) within a moisture range of plus to minus 3 percentage points of the optimum moisture.. Compaction within five feet of the walls should be accomplished using hand compaction equipment and should be compacted between 90 and 95 percent of the Standard Proctor Density. On -Site Soil Backfill:: For wall backfill areas with site - excavated materials or similar imported materials, all oversized fragments larger than four inches in maximum dimension should be removed from the backfill materials prior to placement.. The backfill should be free of all organic and deleterious materials, and should be placed in maximum 8 -inch compacted lifts at a minimum of 95 percent of Standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698) within a moisture range of plus to minus 3 percentage points of optimum moisture. Compaction within five feet of the walls should be accomplished using hand compaction equipment, and should be between 90 and 95 percent of the Standard Proctor Density.. 4.3.3 Wall Backfill Settlement Settlement of the wall backfill should be anticipated. Piping and conduits through the fill should be designed for potential soil loading due to fill settlement.. On -grade slabs, sidewalks, and pavements over fills also may settle.. Backfill compacted to the density recommended above is anticipated to settle on the order of 0..2 to 0..5 percent of the fill thickness.. 4.3.4 Below -Grade Drainage Requirements Pervious walls require a geotextile for separation between the backfill and the back face of the wall. In order to achieve the "drained" condition, the entire backfill material must be free draining, or the backfill -wall geometry must be such that the backfill will not become saturated from rainfall, ground water, adjacent water courses, or other sources.. It should be noted that non - expansive earth fill and general earth fill are not -free draining. Report No, 131 -12 -116 0 v CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 5.1 General Comments Retaining walls are proposed in various locations to establish an erosion control feature around the large lake and channel„ An additional focus of this investigation was to determine if there exists an ample safety factor for construction of retaining walls at this site and also to perform a check of the existing channel slope between the large lake and Parkway Boulevard. These analyses check only for global slope failure.. The internal stability, overturning, and sliding failure check should be performed by the wall designer, based on specific soil and product information.. 5.2 Slope Stability Analysis System- Computer Solutions CMJ Engineering, Inc. selected GSTABL7 with STEDwin to perform the slope stability analyses for this project.. GSTABL7 with STEDwin is a combination of GSTABL7, an off shoot based on the original PCSTABL6 -1986 developed at Purdue University.. It is a two - dimensional, limit equilibrium slope stability program developed and enhanced by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. and Harold W. VanAller, P.E. CMJ Engineering, Inc. utilized GSTABL7, Version 2. This slope stability analysis utilizes Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or the Spencer Method of Slices for analysis.. Circular, random, and sliding block search routines are available for analysis. Analysis also allows the utilization of anisotropic soil strength parameters which aid in modeling tension cracks of bedding planes as well as different soil strength in different directions.. The system overall allows analyses of hundreds of search options and potential failure surfaces and results in a print out showing the geometry, soil parameter summary, and listing of the ten most critical failure surfaces analyzed, focusing and highlighting the most critical surface with the lowest safety factor. 5.3 Analyseslinput Parameters Numerous analyses were conducted by CMJ Engineering, Inc. to identify the worst -case methodology to use in analysis as well as the appropriate soil parameters, which affect the slope stability.. Slope stability analyses were conducted based on geometrics of the proposed walls and slope cross section information provided by Teague Nail and Perkins, Inc. The assumed soil properties utilized for analysis are denoted in the table in the upper left on Plates B.1 through 8.3. The soil type below each profile line is denoted with a number that corresponds to the table in the upper left. The table lists the assumed unit weight and strength properties for each soil type.. The Report No. 131 -12 -115 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 9 method for determining the strength of the slope soils was laboratory soil testing.. The strength tests consisted of both unconfined compressive tests and direct shear tests. The soil zones selected for modeling consist of the following:: • Upper Soil Zones with generally stiff clay and silty clay soil conditions, exhibiting relatively moderate cohesive strength • Lower Soil Zones — sandy clays and clayey sands, possessing significantly increased internal angle of friction parameters and reduced cohesion over Upper Soils. • The depth to dark gray shale was considered too deep to affect the slope analyses conducted herein, and was therefore not included. Plates B..1 and B.2 depicts two cross sections taken from the channel section between the large lake and Parkway Boulevard, with approximate overall heights of 10 to 12 feet and slope angles varying from 3HAV to 2HAV. These two sections are referred to as Sections 1085 and 1320, respectively. Topographic information utilized in developing the lake shore cross section on Plate B..3 was provided from a plan sheet entitled "Central Activity Lake Concept Plan" dated June 2012 by Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc.. Long -term acceptable factors of safety for slope stability are considered to be 1.5 or above. In other words, the resisting forces to failure are 50 percent greater than the driving forces. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates impending failure. 5.4 Slope Stability Results and Comments Based on field observations of the existing slope and in -situ and laboratory test results, the existing onsite soils presently possess moderate shear strength (soil basis).. Slope stability analyses resulted in higher than acceptable factors of safety, on the order of 3.8 and up to 6.5, for in -situ moisture and soil strength conditions in all three cross sections analyzed.. These analyses imply the existing slope between the large lake and Parkway Boulevard should remain stable in its pre- existing orientation, without considering erosion and surface skin sliding effects. In addition, the planned lake shoreline walls should also be stable with respect to global slope stability The results of slope stability analyses indicate that deep - seated instability is not a concern in any of these three cases. Most likely any surficial sloughing or minor slope slippage noted on -site have been caused to erosion related problems. Report No 131.17.116 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 10 Although the analyses indicates that a satisfactory safety factor exists regarding slope stability; it is imperative that trained field personnel be vigilant to observing anomalies that may occur in the subsurface conditions during the excavation and placement of the slope protection and /or retaining walls.. Any anomalous conditions should be brought to the attention of the engineers on this project for evaluation and potential remediation, as necessary.. Onsite materials are known to vary in soil type and consistency. Isolated zones of loosely packed or soft materials can exist and their potential should be carefully observed by trained construction personnel. 6.1 Site Preparation The subgrade should be firm and able to support the construction equipment without displacement. Soft or yielding subgrade should be corrected and made stable before construction proceeds. The subgrade should be proof rolled to detect soft spots, which if exist, should be reworked to provide a firm and otherwise suitable subgrade.. Proof rolling should be performed using a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar piece of equipment. The proof rolling operations should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer or his /her representative. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, its moisture content adjusted, and recompacted to the moisture and density recommended for fill. 6.2 Placement and Compaction Fill material should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. The uncompacted lift thickness should be reduced to 4 inches for structure backfill zones requiring hand - operated power compactors or small self - propelled compactors. The fill material should be uniform with respect to material type and moisture content. Clods and chunks of material should be broken down and the fill material mixed by disking, blading, or plowing, as necessary, so that a material of uniform moisture and density is obtained for each lift.. Water required for sprinkling to bring the fill material to the proper moisture content should be applied evenly through each layer.. The on -site soils are suitable for use in site grading. Imported fill material should be clean soil with a Liquid Limit less than 45 and no rock greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension. The fill materials should be free of vegetation and debris.. Report No. 131- 12-116 11 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC.. The fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by the Standard Proctor test, ASTM D 698. In conjunction with the compacting operation, the fill material should be brought to the proper moisture content.. The moisture content for general earth fill should range from 2 percentage points below optimum to 5 percentage points above optimum ( -2 to +5). These ranges of moisture contents are given as maximum recommended ranges.. For some soils and under some conditions, the contractor may have to maintain a more narrow range of moisture content (within the recommended range) in order to consistently achieve the recommended density. Field density tests should be taken as each lift of fill material is placed.. As a guide, one field density test per lift for each 5,000 square feet of compacted area is recommended. For small areas or critical areas the frequency of testing may need to be increased to one test per 2,500 square feet. A minimum of 2 tests per lift should be required.. The earthwork operations should be observed and tested on a continuing basis by an experienced geotechnician working in conjunction with the project geotechnical engineer. Each lift should be compacted, tested, and approved before another lift is added. The purpose of the field density tests is to provide some indication that uniform and adequate compaction is being obtained. The actual quality of the fill, as compacted, should be the responsibility of the contractor and satisfactory results from the tests should not be considered as a guarantee of the quality of the contractor's filling operations. 6.3 General Slope Recommendations Special site preparation procedures will be imperative to reduce the possibility of slope sliding, settlement of fill soils, and otherwise undue soil movements.. In addition, where existing slopes may be re- worked, cuts and fills will be required to properly blend new fill materials to existing materials. These procedures are outlined below, but generally consist of proper removal of existing vegetation, proof rolling the site area to receive fill, benching new fill into the existing fill to prevent a direct slide plane at this interface, and general grading at existing, specific erosion and drainage areas. Specific recommended procedures are provided in this report section to emphasize the importance of these procedures If these procedures are adhered to during the construction phase, the Report No. 131- 12 -1i& CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 12 potential for slides, undue settlement, and otherwise problematic soil movements are greatly reduced.. The following specific recommendations are provided, 1.. Grub all areas in which earth fill operations will take place. This requires the proper removal and disposal of all trees, brush, and vegetation.. It also requires the grubbing of all roots in excess of 1 inch and disposing of them properly away from the site. 2.. All organic topsoil, trash, debris, or other deleterious materials should be removed from the fill.. Any rock fragments larger than 6 -inch size should likewise be removed. 3. In areas to receive fill, the surface should be proof rolled to locate any soft or compressible materials. Should said materials be encountered, they should be removed and backfilled with acceptable soil materials. 4. The fill materials should be placed from the bottom leading upwards.. The surface soils should be lightly scarified to allow bonding of new fill to either natural soils or existing fill. The initial lift of fill should be at least 12 feet wide and placed on a horizontal plane. As additional fill is placed, the fill should be benched into the natural soil for every 1 -foot thickness of fill placed. The benches should continue to work uphill to prevent a continuous plane from occurring at the new fill /old fill /natural soil interface. The onsite soil may be used as fill for re- working of slopes; however, if a mass grading deficit occurs, then offsite soil should be brought in as fill to this site.. Any off site borrow fill should consist of silty clays, sandy clays, or clayey sands with a Liquid Limit less than 45 and a Plasticity Index between 4 and 25. These acceptable soils are classified as CL or SC per the Unified Soil Classification System.. Clean sands, silts, gravels, and highly plastic clays should be discarded. In addition, fill materials should be placed, pulverized as required, uniformly moistened as required, compacted to those standards listed above and reiterated in Section 6.2, and each lift tested to assure proper compaction.. Any fill not meeting specifications should be reworked /recompacted as necessary.. In addition, light scarification should be performed on the surface of the accepted fill prior to placing the next lift of fill in order to bond the fill lifts satisfactorily.. 6.4 Slope Considerations We recommend the proposed slopes along the north side of the large lake incorporate 3 horizontal to 1 vertical slope angles or flatter. These slope angles are generally considered acceptable in the Dallas /Fort Worth Metroplex area for the given height.. Selected zones of onsite soils may be soft and creep movement can occur on slopes, particularly along the channel slope between the large lake and Parkway Boulevard. Creep phenomenon usually manifest as slow to very slow soil RepoTt No. 131 -12 -115 CNMJ ENGINEERING, INC. 13 movements or skin slides which may require periodic maintenance. Maintenance of shallow creep movement can be accomplished via the itemized process in Section 6..3. Slopes steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical are specifically not recommended.. 6.5 Excavation The side slopes of excavations through the overburden soils should be made in such a manner to provide for their stability during construction. Existing structures, pipelines or other facilities, which are constructed prior to or during the currently proposed construction and which require excavation, should be protected from loss of end bearing or lateral support.. Temporary construction slopes and /or permanent embankment slopes should be protected from surface runoff water. Site grading should be designed to allow drainage at planned areas where erosion protection is provided, instead of allowing surface water to flow down unprotected slopes. Trench safety recommendations are beyond the scope of this report. The contractor must comply with all applicable safety regulations concerning trench safety and excavations including, but not limited to, OSHA regulations. 6.6 Soil Corrosion Potential Specific testing for soil corrosion potential was not included in the scope of this study. However, based upon past experience on other projects in the vicinity, the soils at this site may be corrosive.. Standard construction practices for protecting metal pipe and similar facilities in contact with these soils should be used. 6.7 Erosion and Sediment Control All disturbed areas should be protected from erosion and sedimentation during construction, and all permanent slopes and other areas subject to erosion or sedimentation should be provided with permanent erosion and sediment control facilities.. All applicable ordinances and codes regarding erosion and sediment control should be followed. Plates A.11 and A..12 present sieve /hydrometer grain size analyses for typical onsite soils.. The following table provides grain size for erosion analyses. Report No., 131- 12-116 14 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. Table 6.7 -1 Grain Size Values 7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS In any geotechnical investigation, the design recommendations are based on a limited amount of information about the subsurface conditions„ In the analysis, the geotechnical engineer must assume the subsurface conditions are similar to the conditions encountered in the borings.. However, quite often during construction, anomalies in the subsurface conditions are revealed.. Therefore, it is recommended that CMJ Engineering, Inc. be retained to observe any additional earthwork and perform materials evaluation during the construction phase of the project. This enables the geotechnical engineer to stay abreast of the project and to be readily available to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required and, when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to unanticipated conditions.. It is proposed that construction phase observation and materials observation commence by the project geotechnical engineer at the outset of the project. Experience has shown that the most suitable method for procuring these services is for the owner or the owner's design engineers to contract directly with the project geotechnical engineer.. This results in a clear, direct line of communication between the owner and the owner's design engineers and the geotechnical engineer.. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used in their determination„ The boring logs shown in this report contain information related to the types of soil encountered at specific locations and times and show lines delineating the interface between these materials. The logs also contain our field representative's interpretation of conditions that are believed to exist in those depth intervals between the actual samples taken. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information.. Laboratory soil classification tests were also performed on samples from selected depths in the borings. The results of these tests, along with visuai- manual procedures, were used to generally Report No. 131 -12 -113 CM! ENGINEERING, INC. 15 Grain Size (mm) Boring No. Depth (Ft.) D5o D95 B -3 2 -3 0.0030 0.2840 B -4 1 -2 0.0034 0.2820 7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS In any geotechnical investigation, the design recommendations are based on a limited amount of information about the subsurface conditions„ In the analysis, the geotechnical engineer must assume the subsurface conditions are similar to the conditions encountered in the borings.. However, quite often during construction, anomalies in the subsurface conditions are revealed.. Therefore, it is recommended that CMJ Engineering, Inc. be retained to observe any additional earthwork and perform materials evaluation during the construction phase of the project. This enables the geotechnical engineer to stay abreast of the project and to be readily available to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required and, when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to unanticipated conditions.. It is proposed that construction phase observation and materials observation commence by the project geotechnical engineer at the outset of the project. Experience has shown that the most suitable method for procuring these services is for the owner or the owner's design engineers to contract directly with the project geotechnical engineer.. This results in a clear, direct line of communication between the owner and the owner's design engineers and the geotechnical engineer.. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used in their determination„ The boring logs shown in this report contain information related to the types of soil encountered at specific locations and times and show lines delineating the interface between these materials. The logs also contain our field representative's interpretation of conditions that are believed to exist in those depth intervals between the actual samples taken. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information.. Laboratory soil classification tests were also performed on samples from selected depths in the borings. The results of these tests, along with visuai- manual procedures, were used to generally Report No. 131 -12 -113 CM! ENGINEERING, INC. 15 classify each stratum.. Therefore, it should be understood that the classification data on the logs of borings represent visual estimates of classifications for those portions of each stratum on which the full range of laboratory soil classification tests were not performed.. It is not implied that these logs are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.. With regard to ground -water conditions, this report presents data on ground -water levels as they were observed during the course of the field work.. In particular, water level readings have been made in the borings at the times and under conditions stated in the text of the report and on the boring logs.. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground -water table can occur with passage of time due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. Also, this report does not include quantitative information on rates of flow of ground water into excavations, on pumping capacities necessary to dewater the excavations, or on methods of dewatering excavations. Unanticipated soil conditions at a construction site are commonly encountered and cannot be fully predicted by mere soil samples, test borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made by the owner to attain a properly designed and constructed project. Therefore, provision for some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra cost. The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our field investigation and further on the assumption that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings at the time they were completed.. If, during construction, different subsurface conditions from those encountered in our borings are observed, or appear to be present in excavations, we must be advised promptly so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if structure locations, structural loads or finish grades are changed, we urge that we be promptly informed and retained to review our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and /or time lapse.. Report No. 131 -12 -116 CMJ ENcLNEER1NC,1NC. 16 Further, it is urged that CMJ Engineering, Inc.. be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications for this particular project that pertain to earthwork as a means to determine whether the plans and specifications are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report.. In addition, we are available to observe construction, particularly the compaction of structural fill, or backfili as recommended in the report, and such other field observations as might be necessary. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, ground water or air, on or below or around the site. The scope of services also did not include any assessment of the site for suitability for the proposed construction or use, related to items or conditions other than those specifically addressed in this report.. This report has been prepared for use in developing an overall design concept. Paragraphs, statements, test results, boring logs, diagrams, etc, should not be taken out of context, nor utilized without a knowledge and awareness of their intent within the overall concept of this report. The reproduction of this report, or any part thereof, supplied to persons other than the owner, should indicate that this study was made for design purposes only and that verification of the subsurface conditions for purposes of determining difficulty of excavation, trafficability, etc. are responsibilities of the contractor. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. for specific application to design of this project.. The only warranty made by us in connection with the services provided is that we have used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality.. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended. Report Flo. 131-12-116 17 CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. U W W C7 N ' \ O V z U W O W 7 U z O Q O?�w U-1 O =COL zz Q) Q zQ J Q � w Q FLA TE Af Major Divisions Grp Typical Names Laboratory Classification Criteria Well- graded gravels, gravel- 2 D60 iD,Qi2 ns m C GW sand mixtures, little or no Lo C„= - - - -- greater than 4: Cc= -------- - - - - -- between 1 and 3 cn > 0 fines D10 D10 x Dso c N U Poorly graded gravels, gravel ,U) a`) a°, C� V7 2 T N Co y= o v GP sand mixtures, little or no u) U) w Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW L J fines CU L Cn ° U �? Liquid and Plastic limits q C) ° o z o GM Silty gravels, gravel- sand -silt N 0 below "A" line or P i. Liquid and plastic limits omixtures E ai a Z v greater than 4 plotting in hatched zone Z .+ 3 U u, between 4 and 7 are Liquid and Plastic limits �, -C cU `'= m "() o a) o U) N o M borderline cases o �- > a) GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand- above "A" line with P.I. requiring use of dual a) a) m o ? D Q Q clay mixtures y L z° ° '� greater than 7 symbols E w F N a) m Well- graded sands, gravelly m D60 (D3o)Z E 4= SW Sands, little or no fines C „= - - - -- greater than 6: Cc= -------- - - - - -- between 1 and 3 D10 Dio x D60 co co E U) v, N o cn C c m o Poorly graded sands; a) C o C a) aoi 6 U a ° L'! v SP gravelly sands, little or no v ; Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW 4 L= > N fines ) C C -6 i ,a) O O Q N C 0 V. cn ° 0 N a) o) CU a) Liquid and Plastic limits q v V-- ° ° '� � c o SM Silt sands, sand -silt y iri -� N below "A” line or P.I. less Liquid and plastic limits L s mixtures a, 3 N o �- E Q o (o o than 4 plotting between 4 and 7 Q C o ° —' are borderline cases a "- c °) a Liquid and Plastic limits requiring use of dual o ° SC Clayey sands, sand -clay E a .� above "A" line with P.I. symbols Q mixtures C U) a) a, W greater than 7 Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or LO ML clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity > Inorganic clays of low to T U) medium plasticity, gravelly o° a .t CL clays, sandy clays, silty clays, 50 N " = and lean clays o -2 CH Z C J Organic silts and organic Silty 40 L OL clays of low plasticity o X E �) z-30 F00Hd a) Inorganic silts, micaceous or F0 �' LO MH diatomaceous fine sandy or E . MH CM silty soils, elastic silts 20 PP c6 N C L v CL 0 , Inorganic clays of high CU CH °) plasticity, fat clays 1 � '� V 4 I ML a d 0 L Cr OH vrganiC clays vi meduum to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 7 v u high plasticity, organic silts Liquid Limit . 0 o Pt Peat and other highly organic Plasticity Chart a, soils 110 I jUNIFiED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PLATE A. � SOIL OR ROCK TYPES ®® GRAVEL LEAN CLAY LIMESTONE • • SAND • • SANDY — SHALE • 0% • • SILT SILTY SANDSTONE CLAYEY HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY CONGLOMERATE Shelby Tube Auger Split Spoon Rock Core Cone Pen No Recovery TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY, CONDITION, AND STRUCTURE OF SOIL Fine Grained Soils (More than 50% Passing No 200 Sieve) Descriptive Item Penetrometer Reading, (tsf) Soft 0.0 to 1.0 Firm 1.0 to 1.5 Stiff 1,5 to 10 Very Stiff 3.0 to 4.5 Hard 4.5+ Coarse Grained Soils (More than 50% Retained on No 200 Sieve) Penetration Resistance Descriptive Item Relative Density (blows /foot) 0 to 4 Very Loose 0 to 20% 4 to 10 Loose 20 to 40% 10 to 30 Medium Dense 40 to 70% 30 to 50 Dense 70 to 90% Over 50 Very Dense 90 to 100% Soil Structure Calcareous Contains appreciable deposits of calcium carbonate; generally nodular Slickensided Having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance Laminated Composed of thin layers of varying color or texture Fissured Containing cracks, sometimes filled with fine sand or silt Interbedded Composed of alternate layers of different soil types, usually in approximately equal proportions TERMS DESCRIBING PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF ROCK Hardness and Degree of Cementation Very Soft or Plastic Can be remolded in hand; corresponds in consistency up to very stiff in soils Soft Can be scratched with fingernail Moderately Hard Can be scratched easily with knife; cannot be scratched with fingernail Hard Difficult to scratch with knife Very Hard Cannot be scratched with knife Poorly Cemented or Friable Easily crumbled Cemented Bound together by chemically precipitated material; Quartz, calcite, dolomite, siderite, and iron oxide are common cementing materials and iron oxide are common cementing materials. Degree of Weathering Unweathered Rock in its natural state before being exposed to atmospheric agents Slightly Weathered Noted predominantly by color change with no disintegrated zones Weathered Complete color change with zones of slightly decomposed rock j Extremely Weathered Complete color change with consistency, texture, and general appearance approaching soil II Ia r= TO `I ACCIII'ATInki Akin SVRi PALC PLATE A. IKE V9e rA ION r14— Project No 131 -12 -116 Boring No B -1 Project Lake and Channel Investigation - Andy Brown Park Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location See Plate A.1 Water Observations Seepage at 11' during drilling; water at 10' and cave -in at 17' at Completion Completion Depth 40.0' Completion Date 5 -21 -12 LL fl o T N Qpj m-o Surface Elevation Type B -53, w/ CFA o U w o CI 3c o a) O N Z y> m.� �"= a E U) as E )a) m-o .2c 0 o u- y c Q _ C V- a� ti rn 00E5 c o 0 Stratum Description 5 1 15 2 25 30 35 SANDY CLAY, dark brown, stiff to very stiff (FILL) -w/ reddish brown, gravel, below 2' I 225 16 3.25 15 2.25 13 114 2000 2,5 14 3.25 15 CLAY / SILTY CLAY, dark brown, stiff 2.0 52 25 27 31 90 1.5 27 95 2190 SAND / CLAYEY SAND, brown and gray 15 26 SANDY CLAY, brown and gray 26 —_— — -- =- — — —_ SHALE, dark gray, moderately hard 00/2.25' 10012.5" LOG OF BORING NO -1 'LATE A.4 I Project No 131 -12 -116 Boring No B -2 Project Lake and Channel Investigation -Andy Brown Park ivi� LtVVII��I ttw ltV� Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location See Plate A.1 Water Observations Seepage at 18' during drilling; water at 12' at completion Completion Depth 50.0' Completion Date 5 -18 -12 LL o 9 E U a Surface Elevation Type CME -55, w/ CFA U uJ o d rn LL 3o o 0tn mCL r o N �� S (6 N> m LD 0- (n -o o �= sE JJ o o in T E a y ';:3 � x n(D 0-0 a5 a� .NC 0 0 U pU r6 ;_-0 _ C LL o = N `� o 0.a c)EO c o o Stratum Description 5 1 15 20 25 3 35 4 5 CLAY / SILTY CLAY, dark brown, w/ calcareous nodules, hard 4.5+ 15 4.5+ 16 4.5+ 14 4.5+ 13 CLAY / SILTY SANDY CLAY, brown to dark brown, w/ calcareous nodules, very stiff to hard -stiff to very stiff below 9' 3.75 15 4.5+ 61 19 42 23 102 3.25 24 2.5 24 102 4050 CLAYEY SAND, light brown and gray 1.5 27 13 14 16 114 1.25 47 17 0.25 23 GRAVEL, w/ sand _— — _ SHALE, dark gray, soft to moderately hard -w/ limestone seams below 37' ----------------- - - - - 100/5.5" -- _ — —_ -- 100/4" 00/4.25' LOG OF BORING NO —2 PLATE Ao5 I Project No 131 -12 -116 Boring No B -3 Project Lake and Channel Investigation - Andy Brown Park Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location See Plate A.1 Water Observations Seepage at 10' during drilling; water at Vat completion Completion Depth 20.0' Completion 1 Date 5 -18 -12 LL Q- o T a E Surface Elevation Type CME -55, w/ CFA o U W � o C� Q' _0 �= LL O N V! mdh 0 0 Z 0) N> c6 .� O_fn o 7 ±: O' >= JJ N N E D_J N N c6 'O d C o N= O O _ ?j IL z= !" VI C-0 c ti N N a U 7 C O O Stratum Description 5 10 15 20 r i ) 1 CLAY / SILTY CLAY, dark brown, w/ calcareous nodules, very stiff to hard -w/ ironstone nodules below 4' I 45+ 12 45+ 13 425 51 20 31 20 3,25 21 3.5 20 111 4410 SANDY CLAY, light brown and gray, w/ calcareous nodules and ironstone nodules, stiff soft below 19' ----------------------- 1 5 21 2.0 1 55 30 13 17 15 2.75 16 0.5 19 LOG OF BORING NO B -3 PLATE An6 C-'MT ENGINEERING INC Project No N o Project Lake and Channel Investigation - Andy Brown Park 131 -12 -116 �Boriing B -4 Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location Water Observations See Plate A.1 Seepage at 12.5' during drilling; water at 9' at completion Completion Completion Depth 20 W ' Date 5 -18 -12 Surface Elevation Type CME -55, wl CFA _ LL O E N -a o o N 0 _ �LL O LL a E stratum Description o Z w oL W yU) 0 0c� U 0 2i C > X N N C � U o U Q O CJ O N� COdH 2 dU JJ dJ 0-.E 0 0 220 DJ C 00 CLAY / SILTY CLAY, dark brown, w/ calcareous 4.5+ 15 4.5+ 51 20 31 13 nodules, hard 4.5+ 12 -stiff to very stiff below 3' 225 25 100 3380 3.0 24 5 SANDY CLAY, light brown and gray, w/ calcareous 325 19 nodules and ironstone nodules, stiff to very stiff 275 19 113 3230 10 2.25 66 34 13 21 18 15 firm below 19' 1 25 21 2 ----------------------- N M n I � I N M LL ° 1 ,,� r,C Qnaitlir Kin -� PLATE A Project No. Boring No L1V1� G1VViiVGGl i1v� i v` Project Lake and Channel Investigation - Andy Brown Park 131 -12 -116 B -5 Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location Water Observations See Plate A.1 Seepage at 10.5' during drilling; water at 11' at completion Completion Completion Depth 20.0' Date 5 -18 -12 Surface Elevation Type CME -55, w/ CFA Stratum Description LL CL o O .fl T a N o w W o C1 W '6 v�D LL -2 a) mo.F— 0 O N Z �� a) m CL U) o rr o_ iaE a_, x as-6 a5 ° m o 20 _ LL :0!-- V � _J c LL y Cn Cr v o ac cob :DUO- CLAY / SILTY CLAY, dark brown, w/ calcareous 45+ 10 4.5+ 13 nodules, hard -stiff to very stiff below 2' 225 25 101 3630 2.25 27 2.0 27 5 2.25 58 17 41 26 325 1 1 22 10 SANDY CLAY, light brown and gray, w/ calcareous nodules and ironstone nodules, stiff -w/ brown below 13' 2.75 19 15 1.5 20 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — i J I I i I LOG OF BORING No -5 PLATE A•8 - .TT - Project No Boring No. Project Lake and Channel Investigation - Andy Brown Park 131 -12 -116 B -6 Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location Water Observations See Plate A.1 Dry during drilling; dry at completion Completion Completion Depth 20.0' Date 6 -22 -12 Surface Elevation Type B -47, w/ CFA _ L N fl o Stratum Description CU U �u> 3a�W X�c E � W C3 Y o mo_F- m. a) (L f m E m :EU » c o o DUO - SILTY CLAY, dark brown, w/ calcareous nodules, 4.5+ 15 45+ 13 hard -stiff below 2' 1 75 23 2 5 24 103 2950 2.5 48 19 29 22 5 SILTY SANDY CLAY, light brown and gray, w/ 375 18 ironstone nodules, stiff to very stiff 1.75 17 1 1.75 18 15 1.5 16 20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — V n I D y M 0 Z M 0 co 0I PLATE I (�G OF BORING NO B-6 n -- - - __ ,-'A TT Project No No . Project Lake and Channel Investigation - Andy Brown Park 131 -12 -116 �Boring -% Parkview Boulevard - Coppell, Texas Location Water Observations See Plate A.1 Dry during drilling; dry at completion Completion Completion Depth 20.0' 1 Date 5 -22 -12 Surface Elevation Type B-47, wl CFA ii w o s E a °. 0 04 0 �ti c ii g nto Q E `) Stratum Description o a �a) Z o� _�� M o U 3�u N> �.- N.= axi n c - ui 'E v E w CJ W o ac) C/5 mdH m.Lp (L W a-E JJ _� E dJ m� d S o o 20 Q Z) -3 c o o Z) Ud SILTY CLAY / CLAY, dark brown, w/ calcareous 4.5+ 17 45+ 18 nodules, hard -firm to stiff below 2' 1-75 26 100 2170 1 5 28 1.25 29 5 25 22 SILTY SANDY CLAY, light brown and gray, w/ 2.0 39 13 26 17 10— calcareous nodules and ironstone nodules, firm to stiff 2.0 16 15 1.25 18 20 ----------------------- n J I a �I II O Z 0 O al I nr- np RnRINr. Nn 13- PLATE .� J 100 90 80 70 0� 60 w Z LL Z 50 W U 0Y w 40 CL 30 20 10 0 Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm. %+3" % Gravel % Sand %m Fines CoarseFine Coarse Medium -- Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 17.5 26.4 1 55.1 0 51 20 0.1126 0.0065 0.0030 Material Description USCS i AASHTO o Silty Clay, dark brown w/ calcareous nodules Project No. 131 -12 -116 Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel 110 Sample Number: B -3 2 -3 CIVIJ ENGINEERING, INC. Fort Worth, Texas Remarks: 4 ,, 0,.. AA11 iii ,iAT� A 11 I esied BY: IVIK' �12t;%'ftCU say. svire , 100 90 80 70 W 60 Z LL Z 50 W U ry W 4C a 3( 2C 1C Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse I Fine Coarse, Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0'.00.0 0.2 0.4 15.5 29.9 54.0 D D D D C LL PL D 51 20 0.0796 0.0082 0.0034 Material Description SCS AASHTO Silty Clay, dark brown w/ calcareous nodules Project No. 131 -12 -116 Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. RemarKs: Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel o Sample Number: B -4 1 -2 Fort - Tested By: iv1K PLATE A,.12 -0 -0 c -0 0 0 aD 0 U N 1 1500 1250 1000 CL a) 750 CU a) U) 500 250 Strain, % I I! I I I I I i I I —14--1 I � �I ]II 25 5 75 10 Strain, % Sample Type: Shelby Tube Description: Silty Clay, dark brown LL.= 52 PL= 25 Pl= 27 Assumed Specific Gravity= 2..7 Remarks: 1 3 2 6000 4000 r5 CL m L6 LL 2000 0 Sample No.. 3 Water Content, % 2 Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % c: Void Ratio 1 Diameter, in. Height, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf ISaturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in.. Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail.. Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in.. /min. Normal Stress, psf 1 Results 3 30,.6 30,.6 30.6 85.3 — - — C, psf 797 0,9752 0,.8773 0„8854 2„50 2,.50 2.50 — 0.75 �, deg 12.0 313 — 853 — Tan(o) 0.21 963 87.0 0„9752 0..8773 0,.8854 2.50 2..50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 973 1297 1399 4.0 4 „0 2.8 I L - -, -- . - I I �I 7 01 2000 4000 6000 Sample No.. 3 Water Content, % 2 Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % c: Void Ratio 1 Diameter, in. Height, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf ISaturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in.. Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail.. Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in.. /min. Normal Stress, psf 1 2 3 30,.6 30,.6 30.6 85.3 89.8 89.4 84,.7 94.2 93.3 0,9752 0,.8773 0„8854 2„50 2,.50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 34..4 313 28..5 853 89„8 89.4 952 963 87.0 0„9752 0..8773 0,.8854 2.50 2..50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 973 1297 1399 4.0 4 „0 2.8 0,69 N/A N/A Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel Sample Number: B -1 Depth: 7 -8 Proj. No.: 131 -12 -116 Date: 6/12/2012 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Tested Bv: MK Checked Bv: MK ICI A.TF A 1 -0 -0 c c -0 0 .7� E L 0 M n _U a� 0 1500 1250 1000 n m 750 c� (D U) 500 250 0 Strain, % 1 2 3 6000 4000 a ''L^^ VJ M LL 2000 0 Sample No.. Water Content, % 3 Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % 2 Void Ratio Diameter, in.. Height, in. I Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in. Heiaht. in. Normal Stress, psf Fail. Stress, psf 0 5 10 15 20 Strain, % Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in.. /min.. Sample Type: Shelby Tube Description: Silty Clay, dark brown LL= 52 PL= 25 PI= 27 Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.7 I Remarks: Residual ■ Normal Stress, psf 1 2 3 30.6 30„6 30.6 85.3 89„8 89.4 84.7 942 93.3 0,9752 0,.8773 0..8854 2,.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 34..4 31.3 28..5 85..3 89„8 89.4 9.5.2 96.3 87.0 0,9752 0.8773 0.8854 2,.50 2.50 2..50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 709 1044 1196 9.6 10A 8,.0 N/A N/A N/A Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel Sample Number: B -1 Depth: 7 -8 Proj. No.: 131 -12 -116 Date: 6/12/2012 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT U M J i E rilN , 1 U. Tested Bv: MK Checked Bv: MK Pt ATF A 1A C C 0 .6 E L 0 U_ a) 6000 5000 4000 CL 0 v 3000 M a> U) 2000 1000 Strain, % Strain, % Sample 'Type: Shelby Tube Description: Silty Sandy Clay, dark brown w/ calcareous nodules LL= 61 PL= 19 Pl= 42 Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.8 Remarks: 2 1 3 6000 4000 C Q U) U) Vl CU LL 2000 0 Sample No Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % ` Void Ratio Diameter, in. Height, in. 3 Water Content, % 2 Dry Density, pcf 1 ) a) Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail. Stress, psf Strain, % Ult Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in. /min. Normal Stress, psf 1 2 3 22.7 22.7 22„7 101.8 102.1 101..4 88.7 89.5 88..0 0.7177 0„7119 0.7240 2.50 2.50 2.,50 0.75 0.75 0.75 25..2 25.,3 24„8 101..8 102,1 101.4 98„4 99„3 95.8 0.7177 0.7119 0.7240 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 2351 2666 3061 32 8.,8 3.6 N/A N/A N/A Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel Sample Number: B-2 Depth: 7 -8 Proj. No.: 131 -12 -116 Date: 6/13/2012 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT CMJ ENGINEERING, INC. Tested By: MK — ____ -- Checked By: MK C 0 E `o ro 0 ca U_ 3000 2500 2000 a M fn v 1500 m m (n 1000 500 Strain, % 1i T -T ' -1. 22.7 - - -- - - -�I 1696 89.5 - - - ' It 0..7177 -�, deg - 19.5 2.50 2.50 2.50 TanO 0.35 - -- 253 24..8 4- 102..1 74- 98.5 99.3 95.8 0••7177 -r 0••7240 2.50 2.50 2.50 _4 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 2068 2372 2777 11.2 17.6 12.0 N/A N/A N/A : 0 5 10� 15� 20 Strain, % Sample Type: Shelby Tube Description: Silty Sandy Clay, dark brown w/ calcareous nodules LL= 61 PL= 19 Pl= 42 Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.8 Remarks: Residual Tested Sy: MK 1 3 2 6000 4000 a Cn U) P U) CIO LL 2000 0 Sample No, 3 Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf 2 _ Saturation, % 1 E Void Ratio Diameter, in Hei ht, in. Water Content, % w. Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in.. Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail , Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in /min i Normal Stress, psf 1 Results 3 22••7 22.7 22.7 - - C, psf 1696 89.5 - - - ' It 0..7177 -�, deg - 19.5 2.50 2.50 2.50 TanO 0.35 - -- 253 24..8 101.8 102..1 101.4 98.5 99.3 95.8 0••7177 0•,7119 0••7240 2.50 2.50 2.50 _ 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 2068 2372 2777 11.2 17.6 12.0 N/A N/A N/A Sample No, 3 Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf 2 _ Saturation, % 1 E Void Ratio Diameter, in Hei ht, in. Water Content, % w. Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in.. Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail , Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in /min i Normal Stress, psf 1 2 3 22••7 22.7 22.7 101 ..8 102 1 101.4 88.7 89.5 88..0 0..7177 0.7119 0.7240 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 25.3 253 24..8 101.8 102..1 101.4 98.5 99.3 95.8 0••7177 0•,7119 0••7240 2.50 2.50 2.50 _ 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 2068 2372 2777 11.2 17.6 12.0 N/A N/A N/A Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel Sample Number: B -2 Depth: 7 -8 Proj. No.: 131 -12 -116 Date: 6/13/2012 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT CMJ NGINF IN r !N "- Checked By: MK X18 A TR_ A A !� -0 .S -0 0 .1� E 0 a� U N 0 3000 2500 2000 CL 1500 m a� U) 1000 500 Strain, % Strain, % Sample Type: Shelby Tube Description: Clayey Sand, gray and light brown LL= 27 PL= 13 P1= 14 ,assumed Specific Gravity= 2.7 Remarks. Tested By: MK 7 2 3 ,.o1� 4000 U) CL vi aD M (6 LL 2000 0 Results 3 - 16..3 - - 709 113.7 90.6 -- - - 91,3 �, deg -- 23.3 0.4822 2.50 2.50 2.,50 TanO 0.43 0.75 16.7 15.1 -' 113.4 113.8 1137 92.6 85.1 83.0 0„4859 0„4807 0.4822 2.50 2.50 � 0.75 0.75 0.75 y 2000 _ 1135 1581 1997 4.8 6.4 20,0 G F N/A 4 = I __'I r !r _ i j - r 0 5 10 15 20 Strain, % Sample Type: Shelby Tube Description: Clayey Sand, gray and light brown LL= 27 PL= 13 P1= 14 ,assumed Specific Gravity= 2.7 Remarks. Tested By: MK 7 2 3 ,.o1� 4000 U) CL vi aD M (6 LL 2000 0 n Sample No Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % 3 Void Ratio Diameter, in 2 Height, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf 1 � Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in./min. Normal Stress, psf 1 Results 3 - 16..3 - C, psf 709 113.7 90.6 -- - - 91,3 �, deg -- 23.3 0.4822 2.50 2.50 2.,50 TanO 0.43 0.75 16.7 15.1 -' 113.4 113.8 1137 92.6 85.1 83.0 0„4859 0„4807 0.4822 2.50 2.50 � 0.75 0.75 0.75 y 2000 3000 1135 1581 1997 4.8 6.4 n Sample No Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % 3 Void Ratio Diameter, in 2 Height, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf 1 � Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in./min. Normal Stress, psf 1 2 3 163 16..3 16.3 113.4 113.8 113.7 90.6 91.6 91,3 0.4859 0.4807 0.4822 2.50 2.50 2.,50 0.75 0.75 0.75 16.7 15.1 14.8 113.4 113.8 1137 92.6 85.1 83.0 0„4859 0„4807 0.4822 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 1135 1581 1997 4.8 6.4 20,0 N/A N/A N/A Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel Sample Number: B -2 Depth: 19 -20 Proj. No.: 131 -12 -116 Date: 6/13/2012 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT MJ ENGINE RIlV r UNC. Checked By: MK PLATE A.17 -0 C -0. 0 .5 E 0 i m _0 m 0 0 3000 2500 N 2000 CL 0 U) v 1500 m 0 U) 1000 500 Strain, % 5 10 151 20 Strain, % Sample Type: Shelby Tube Description: Clayey Sand, gray and light brown LL= 27 PL= 13 P1= 14 Assumed Specific Gravity= 17 Remarks: Residual Tested By: MK 1 2 3 6000 4000 a M LL 2000 Results C, psf 568 �, deg 22.6 Tan() 0.42 we Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Void Ratio 3 Diameter, in.. Height, in. 2 Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf a) Saturation, % Q Void Ratio Diameter, in., Height, in. F rmal Stress, psf il. Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in. /min.. 2000 4000 Normal Stress, psf 1 2 3 16.3 16.3 163 113.4 1118 113.7 90..6 91.6 91.3 0.4859 0„4807 0.4822 2.50 2.50 2,,50 0.75 0.75 0.75 16 „6 15.1 14.8 113.4 113.8 1117 92.5 85.1 83 .O 0.4859 0.4807 0.4822 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1000 2000 3000 973 1419 1804 8..8 20.0 18.4 N/A N/A N/A 6000 Client: Teague Nall and Perkins, Inc. Project: Andy Brown Park - Lake & Channel Sample Number: B -2 Depth: 19 -20 Proj. No.: 131 -12 -116 Date: 6/13/2012 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT MJ ENGINEERING, Nu. Checked By: MK Al A Tr A A n go 0 O y r% t s }O LA U) I - i O ry d LL d� i�N N m co > -a � N I J cyC iU I co LO N CL 7 C Q V i jl0 000 N 2 WOO t0 LL 3 J W �.� N Q. 0 0 i O L U) a NO O U O CL U LO O, III I — N I'HZ� -NI — Li c- N U) N 00 0 U) U) LO Lo LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO iI Cn 67000 W O O O O 0 , 111 C j co m co M CO M M CO M It M.0 0-0 47 `+- m -a - -+ 3 O le LO O O co O N LO It y r% t 40 O 4) CL CL CL 0 0 m to LO V cq CL m (3) CM 4) co ,— co 5, V C4 0 O 4) CL CL CL 0 0 m to LO V cq CL m (3) CM 4) co ,— co 5, V C4 0 II E 4) U- U) cd cm (0 C14 4) J t0 Ca I- z U) 4) Ac 0 tm 4) M L. r cli < LL 0 r F, a) w 9 o CD = ac) 0 2 t N L) -Qo) LC 0- D i 3: CD =3 H a) o CL z 0 cj >, F- Q, 0 (1) 0 0, c) 00) U) cn: NNNMMMMMMM i U) eq()q cq cq W W C9 C? C9 LL m m c) c) c) m c) c) C, c) M -0 0 -0 a) (M I-- CD o CD 00 LO Iq C*4 Iq LO LO I* Do cu X W � O � i d CL ® CL O i LLI � O m L �+ I: co ® C0 C ice+ � � ! u C°O = C 7 III E i ��/�/ V J J III LL - - --- - - -- - - - -- -- N — I. N m 0 co 3 U ' B v .12 J cu LD O CL z �l� cn ornoo- // M Q LLQ� t 0 a. 00 Q t —� L1J N N ^ O O O O to 6 I - a) O.O O � ' LL O C l o I N u I N O �•��' II �I II � is N� l LO ol TZ�NI (n O r _ W 0) N O 0; r) U) U) V d' It a' Vtn to CO stnLC? u) LC? «QtoInLQt0LO LL ! (6 (D (D CO CO CD (O (D (o CO ', LO