SC-Coppell HS-CS 880504May 4, 1988
Mr. Steve Morton
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
RE: Coppell High S{3hool
Dear Steve:
Attached please find a sealed letter from Maxim Engineers regarding the pavement for
Coppell High School. I hope this letter meets with your approval.
Per the decisions made at the last Council Meeting, we are instructing the contractor to
proceed with the 5" and 6' reinforced concrete paving, as outlined in Maxim's letter,
without the soil treatment. Of course, we will continue to work with you to see that the
construction is according to plans and specifications.
We appreciate your help. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
SHWC, nc.
sident
GK:jb
Attachment
cc: Dr. David Stanfield, CISD
SHWC, INC. ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS 5601 MAC ARTkIUR BLVD. · FOURTH FLOOR · LAS COLINAS ° R O. BOX 619087 · DALLAS, TEXAS 75261 · (214) 550-0700
OFFICES: DALLAS HOUSTON CORPUS CHRISTI BROWNSVILLE WASHINGTON, D.C.
Maxim Engineers, Inc.
Geotechnical
Materials Testing
Consultants
April 29, 1988
Coppell IndependeutSchool District
c/oSHWC~tects
5601MacArthurBo%llevald
4thFloorTexasAmericanBankPlaza
Irving, Texz~ 75038
Gentlemen:
This will confirm the ~ions ~e had with the Project Architect, civil
Engineer, Coppell I.S.D., and Coppell Inspection D~, regarding the
pavement cross sections at the referenced project.
The soils exposed at the subgrade level' consist of clayey sands, silty
sands and sandy clays with a plasticity ' _lrr~__x rar~ing between non-
plastic and 16. The ~ fines present in these soils varied between
15 and 64 with the majority being between 20 and 40. ~he classification
tests were submi~ in a report dated March 15, 1988.
A pavement section consisting of five (5) and six (6) inches of
reinforced concrete is proposed for the vehicular parking and
channelized traffic are-~__~ respectively. The o0~crete pavement will be
placed on the exposed soils without the benefit of soil stabilization.
The above pavement sections were designed using the AASHIO concrete
design pro~are for concrete pavem~_nt. The assumptions used in the
design were submit~ in a letter date 04-26-88.
The rec~m~er~_~atic~s provided in the project geotechnical report (Report
No. C-6-0293, dated November 17, 1986), regarding the concrete pavement
and subgrade remain valid and should be followed.
2342 Fabens
P.O. Box 59902
Dallas, Texas 75229
(214) 247-7575
Ooppell I.S.D.
29, 1988
Heavy construction loads should not be applied on the finished~v~
or onthe finished preparedsubgradepriortotheooncretepla~.
In our professional opinion the above pavements are adequate to support
the light vehicular loads and the bus traffic in their respective areas.
The natural soils present, when properly prepared, are also ~te to
support the aforementioned wheel loads after the concrete pavement is
placed. Prior to the start of the concrete placement the pavement
subgrade should be scarified, the moisture content adjusted and
compacted to a density equivalent of higher than 95 percent of the
maximum dry density as d~ using the standard proctor prooedure
(AS~M D 698). ~ne moisture content should be kept within three (3)
percent of optinum. In place field moisture and density tests should be
performed at the rate of one test per 7500 square foot of pavement area
to insure strict adherenoe to the specifications. Dxying or excessive
wetting of the subgrade should not be allowed to occur between the time
the tests are performed and the steel and concrete are placed.
We trust the information submi~ herein is sufficient for your use.
Please contact us if we may be of further assistanoe.
Sincerely,
/sas
Saad M. Hineidi, P.E.
E~ec. Vice President
Maxim Engineers, Inc. '