Loading...
Stoneleigh P2-LR001221ALPHA TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St., Sutfe 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 972/620-8911 - 972/263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 December 2 l, 2000 SPRING VALLEY CONSTRUCTION 10950 Alder Circle Dallas, Texas 75238 Attention: Mr. Keller Webster Re: Lime Slurry and Water Pressure Injection STONELEIGH AT RIVERCHASE Buildings 21, 22, 23 and G-1A Coppcll, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00652-85 Submitted herewith arc results of our analysis of lime slurry and water pressure injection conducted at thc above referenced project. Our analysis consisted of sampling soils after lime slurry and water pressure injection to a depth of 7 ft and performing moisture content, pockct- pcnetromcter and absorption swell tests on representative samples. Sampling of thc injected soils using test borings was performed on December 21, 2000. A total of 13 test borings (Borings 95-107) were performed at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1, the Boring Location Plan, to obtain samples of the injected soils for laboratory testing. Individual test results are presented on summary data sheets attached to this report. According to the project gcotechnical report (re: ALPHA Report No. 98611 dated August 25, 1998), acceptance of lime slurry and water pressure injection should be based upon attaining an ' average free swell of 1 percent, or less, from soils within thc injected zone. Results of current moisture content tests (Figure 2) indicate the average moisture content of thc injected soils at each boring location varies from about 19 to 27. Results of absorption swell tests conducted on samples from the injected zone indicate free swells ranging from about 0.1 to 3.2 percent and averaging about 0.8 percent. Based on results of current moisture content tests and absorption swell tests, it is our opinion thc present free swell within thc injected soils in Buildings 21, 22, 23 and G-lA conforms to the project criteria of 1 percent, or less. Therefore, it is recommended the lime slurry and water pressure injection at in Buildings 21, 22, 23 and G-lA be accepted. Geotechn/c~ E~ · ~ Mater/c~s Test/ng · Env/ron~t~ En~ · Consu#/ng We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. -,,,,""~'"~'n,, Sincerely yours, ~ ~" e~' e~~g ~ · ~ ~ ~, ~ ALPHA TESTING, INC. ~~A~_~ Manager or' Engineering Services DAL/pc A~c~ents Copies: (3) Client (1) Jo~ D~ A.I.A. (3) City of Coppell i 106 102 } B23 ~~ ~ ~ ~52-85 12/21/~ .~, ~ _.. MOISTURE CONTENT BORING #95 BORING ~ BORING #97 DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN 0-1 24.3% 0.50 0-1 20.0% 2.00 0-1 16.1% 1.80 0-1 19.6% 0.50 0-1 19.5% 2.00 0-1 13.2% 1.80 1-2 25.6% 1.50 1-2 35.2% 1.00 1-2 23.5% 2.80 1-2 30.1% 1.50 1-2 29.8% 2.00 1-2 23.6% 2.80 2-3 28.3% 2.70 2-3 31.4% 1.70 2-3 19.5% 2.40 2-3 25.6% 2.70 2-3 28.1% 1.70 2-3 14.7% 4.50 3-4 25.1% 2.80 3-4 26.8% 1.50 3-4 30.3% 1.80 3-4 26.8% 2.80 3-4 18.7% 2.40 3-4 18.1% 2.60 4-5 29.6% 3.30 4-5 30.1% 1.60 4-5 26.5% 2.80 4-5 26.7% 3.30 4-5 25.0% 1.60 4-5 24.6% 2.80 5-6 29.0% 1.50 5-6 29.9% 2.50 5-6 24.1% 3.60 5-6 30.7% 2.20 5-6 30.4% 2.50 5-6 24.9% 3.60 6-7 29.4% 2.10 6-7 25.1% 2.00 6-7 30.4% 3.00 6-7 31.1% 2.10 6-7 24.9% 2.00 6-7 27.8% 3.00 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data . . Dallas, Texas _ ~~..~.~:~;- 2 MOISTURE CONTE BORING ~ BORING 199 BORING #100 DEPTH % MOI~I'. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIS'T. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOI~I'. HAND PEN 0-1 26.{W0 0.00 0-1 22.8% 0.60 0-1 24.0% 0.50 0-1 28.9% 0.00 0-1 21.9% 0.60 0-1 20.9% 0.50 1-2 23.9% 2.20 1-2 22.3% 1.50 1-2 19.8% 2.50 1-2 23.7% 2.20 . 1-2 20.7% 1.50 1-2 21.7% 2.50 2-3 1 3.2% 4.5+ 2-3 23.6% 3.20 2-3 21.8% 1.90 2-3 20.9% 1.50 2-3 29.2% 3.20 2-3 1 9.1% 1.90 3-4 14.9% 4.5+ 3-4 29.5% 1.60 3-4 20.9% 1.80 3-4 18.3% 4.5+ 3-4 30.2% 1.10 3-4 13.2% 4.5+ 4-5 21.3% 4.5+ 4.$ 26.1% 3.00 4-5 24.3% 4.00 4.5 20.4% 4.5+ 4-5 25.2% 3.10 4.5 21.7% 2.00 5-6 13.7% 2.80 5-6 22.5% 2.20 5-6 27.4% 2.20 5-6 12.2% 2.80 5.~ 20.9% 2.20 5-6 25.9% 3.00 6-7 21.5% 1.80 6-7" 24.2% 2.50 6-7 34.2% 1.00 6-7 21.0% 1.80 6-7 23.1% 2.50 6-7 29.3% 1.00 Sprig Valle~ Construe'lion Laboratory Test Data DMias, Texas Figure 2 MOISTURE CONTENT BORING #101 BORING #102 BORING #103 DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH" % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN 0-1 26.4% 0.80 0-1 26.5% 1.00 0-1 26.8% 0.60 0-1 26.6% 0.80 0-1 27.4% 1.00 0-1 31.2% 0.60 1-2 27.6% 1.50 1-2 17.0% 2.30 1-2 24.5% 0.70 1-2 27.0% 1.50 1-2 16.4% 2.30 1-2 26.8% 1.50 2-3 20.8% 3.50 2-3 23.5% 2.00 2-3 20.6% 4.00 2-3 23.3% 3.50 2-3 16.1% 2.60 2-3 14.3% 4.00 3-4 25.1% 2.00 3-4 18.1% 3.00 3-4 12.8% 3.00 3-4 25.5% 2.00 3-4 13.0% 4.30 3-4 13.7% 4.50 4-5 29.2% 3.00 4-5 26.4% 1.50 4-5 17.2% 1.70 4-5 21.3% 4.30 4-5 26.5% 1.50 4-5 15.1% 4.20 5-6 29.8% 4.5+ 5-6 27.9% 2.00 5-6 12.2% 4.30 5-6 22.0% 4.5+ 5-6 23.8% 2.80 5-6 20.0% 3.60 6-7 28.2% 3.60 6-7 26.6% 2.00 6-7 16.8% 2.10 6-7 26.7% 4.50 6-7 21.1% 3.50 6-7 26.9% 2.00 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data ~ Texas Figure 2 Stonddgh At Riverchase MOISTURE CONTENT BORING #104 BORING #105 BORING #106 DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN 0-1 23.8% 1.30 0-1 26.9% 1.00 0-1 21.3% 1.50 0-1 22.7% 1.30 ~.,~. ~.k4Nk'~'~w. ~'~ ~. -',N .~'~ ~, .',?;O I 1-2 26.8% 1.00 I 1-2 25.8% 1.80 1-2 24.8% 3.00 1-2 23.6% 1.00 1-2 26.5% 1.80 1-2 30.5% 3.00 2-3 20.2% 1.50 2-3 14.6% 3.00 2-3 24.2% 3.00 2-3 24.2% 2.20 2-3 21.2% 3.00 2-3 24.6% 3.00 3-4 15.4% 2.20 3-4 18.7% 2.50 3-4 26.6% 2.50 3-4 14.7% 4.20 3-4 17.8% 4.00 3-4 25.9% 2.50 4-5 15.0% 1.50 4-5 16.4% 2.50 4-5 27.6% 2.00 4-5 13.2% 4.5+ 4-5 17.7% 4.50 4-5 24.4% 2.00 5-6 21.5% 3.50 5-6 12.8% 2.80 5-6 25.8% loose 5-6 13.9% 3.50 5-6 22.2% 4.5+ 5-6 29.4% loose 6-7 17.0% 2.00 6-7 26.7% 2.50 6-7 28.7% 2.50 6-7 15.4% 2.50 6-7 27.0% 3.00 6-7 26.2% 2.50 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data Dallas, Texas Figure 2 Stonddgh At RivereAmse MOISTURE CONTENT BORING #107 DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN 0-1 24.2% 1.30 0-1 27.4% , 1.30 1-2 23.6% 4.00 1-2 25.0% 4.00 2-3 22.3% 3.5+ 2-3 22.5% 3.5+ 3-4 23.0% 3.80 3-4 23.5% 3.80 4-5 28.2% 3.50 4-5 25.7% 3.50 5-6 20.7% 2.80 5-6 28.0% 2.80 6-7 27.9% 2.80 6-7 28.0% 3.80 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data Dallas, Texas Figure 2 ABSORPTION SWELL TEST DATA DEPTH, FT ................. 2-3 4-5 2-3 5-6 1-2 4-5 3-4 5-6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT, PCF ................... 97 94 91 93 102 100 117 117 UQUID UMIT, % .......... PLASTIC uMrr, % .......... pLASllcrrY INDEX (Pt) ..................... INITIAL MOISTURE ¢O~ITENT, % ........ 26.8 28.4 31.4 30.4 19.5 25.0 14.6 13.7 FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT, % ......... 27.8 31.0 32.6 31.7 22.2 27.8 21.1 17.0 PERCENT FREE 8WELL. .................... 0.7 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.9 3.2 0.1 BORING NO ...................................... 99 99 100 100 101 101 102 102 DEITFH, Fl' .................. 2-3 5-6 2-3 4-5 2-3 5-6 3-4 5-7 DRY UNIT WEIGHT, PCF ................... 95 103 106 99 105 90 111 97 LIQUID UMIT, % .......... PLAST~ UMIT, % ....... Pi. ASllO/TY INDEX (Pi) .................... INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT, ~ ....... 29.2 22.5 19.1 24.3 21.4 29.7 16.6 25.9 FINAL ~RE CONTENT, % ......... 30.9 24.4 22.8 27.6 22.9 32.1 24.9 28.4 PERCENT FREE SWEM.. .................... 0.5 0.9 0.3 2.0 0.6 0.4 3.1 0.6 ~ NO ...................................... 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 DEP'nl, FT .................. 2-3 6-7 0-1 5-6 2-3 5-6 1-2 5-6 DRY UNIT WEIGNT, PCF ................... 108 99 100 112 115 120 89 96 UQIJID LIMIT, % .......... ~ lIMIT, % ...... PLASTICATY INDEX (PI) ..................... INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT, %. ....... 18.0 21.6 23.8 13.9 16.5 12.9 30.5 26.3 FINAL MOI6'TtJRE CONTENT, % ......... 20.2 23.0 25.9 21.9 16.9 17.0 32.8 29.2 PERCENT FREE 8WELL .................... 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 .BORING NO ...................................... 107 107 DEPTH, FT .................. 1-2 4-5 DRY UNIT WEIGHT, I~CF ................... 101 88 LIQUID MMIT, % ......... INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT, % ........ 23.6 28.2 FINAL MOISTIJRE CONTENT, % ........ 27.9 31.5 PERCENT FREE SWELL. ................... 1.0 0.3 Spri~ Valley Construction Swell Test Data .. Daibl,, Texas Figure 3 " v~'"'~ .~ Tern 12/21/00