The URL can be used to link to this page

Stoneleigh P2-LR001117ALPHA TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 ' Dallas, Texas 75229 ~ 972/620-8911 - 972/263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 November 17, 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 13, 16 and 18 Coppell, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00652-26 Submitted herewith are results of our analysis of lime slurry and water pressure injection conducted at the 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, pocket- penetrometer and absorption swell tests on representative samples. Sampling of the injected soils using test borings was performed on November 17, 2000. A total of 11 test borings (Borings 53-63) 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 geotechnical 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 the injected zone. Results of current moisture content tests (Figure 2) indicate the average moisture content of the injected soils at each boring location varies from about 20 to 27. Results of absorption swell tests conducted on samples from the injected zone indicate free swells ranging from about 0.1 to 3.3 percent and averaging about I percent. Ba.4ed on results of current moisture content tests and absorption swell tests, it is our opinion the present free swell within the injected soils in Building 18 and the south half of Building 13 conforms to the project criteria of 1 percent, or less. Therefore, it is recommended the lime slurry and water pressure injection at Building 18 and the south half of Building 13 be accepted. However, based on results of current moisture content tests and absorption swell tests, it is our opinion the present free .swell within the injected soils at Building 16 and the north half of Building 13 does not conform to the project criteria of I percent, or less. Therefore, it is recommended the soil swell potential at Building 16 and the north half of Building 13 be further reduced by additional water injections. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. ..~.~'~. ~_ Sincerely yours, [?,ge n~:~.~ y,9, ALPHA TESTING, INC. Manager of Engineerin$ Services DAL/pc AUachments Copies: (3) Client (1) John Danna, A.I.A. (3) City of Coppell ~-~'~, ?BY. AS 00652-26 11/17/00 MOISTURE CONTENT BORING #53 BORING #54 BORING #55 DEPTH Ye MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH Ye MOI~I'. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOlS'r. HAND PEN 0-1 26.9% 1.25 0-1 22.8% 0.75 0-1 23.6% 0.50 0-1 27.7% 1.25 0-1 23.6% 1.25 0-1 27.6% 0.75 1-2 25.2% 1.75 1-2 31.8% 1.25 1-2 29.4% 1.00 1-2 28.9% 2.25 1-2 29.6% 2.00 1-2 24.8% 2.00 2-3 27.9% 2.25 2-3 31.5% 1.50 2-3 23.7% 2.50 2-3 27.3% 1.50 2-3 14.0% 3.00 2-3 25.9% 3.00 3-4 27.2% 1.50 3-4 15.5% 4.5+ 3-4 23.3% 2.00 3-4 32.2% 1.25 3-4 16.4% 4.5+ 3-4 18.4% 3.00 4-5 28.9% 1.75 4-5 26.6% 1.00 4-5 22.3% 2.50 4-5 25.5% 1.75 4-5 24.2% 1.50 4-5 22.5% 2.50 5-6 25.3%- 2.75 5-6 21.8% 2.25 5-6 5-6 17.8% 3.25 5-6 50.7% 3.50 5-6 6-7 22.2% 3.25 6.7 26.1% 1.00 6.7 23.7% 2.25 6.7 23.6% 3.00 6.7 27.3% 2.00 6-7 23.0% 2.75 Spring Valley Construction ~ ~' Test Data · -.-, 'V,3. Riverdmse I~ C.--' · 0~S2.-26 ll/17M MOISTURE CONTENT BORING #56 BORING #57 BORING #58 DEPTH % MOIgT. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOI$T. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN 0-1 14.8% 1.00 0-1 17.9% 0.75 0-1 26.9% 1.00 0-1 15.8% 2.50 0-1 13.1% 3.25 0-1 21.9% 0.50 1-2 31.2% 1.25 1-2 13.4% 2.25 1-2 18.8% 2.00 1-2 28.2% 1.75 1-2 19.6% 2.25 1-2 19.4% 2.25 2-3 24.7% 1.50 2-3 27.6% 2.25 2-3 26.5% 1.50 2-3 25.7% 1.50 2-3 25.1% 2.25 2-3 31.4% 1.50 3-4 20.3% 1.75 3-4 26.3% 2.00 3-4 17.4% 2.00 3-4 18.5% 2.25 3-4 26.4% 1.50 3-4 14.9% 2.00 4-5 21.9% 2.25 4-5 15.9% 2.50 4-5 20.4% 2.00 4-5 14.1% 3.25 4-5 14.(P~ 3.50 4-5 15.0% 4.50 5-6 20.6%' 2.00 5-6 13.6% 3.50 5-6 16.7% 3.25 5-6 21.8% 2~5 5-6 13.0% 4.00 5-6 13.7% 3.25 6-7 34~ 1.50 6-7 . 27.5% 1.25 6-7 24.9% 1.50 6-7 24.2% 2.00 6-7 28.5% 1.25 6-7 27.3% 1.75 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data ...... At Riverchase 00652-26 11/17/00 MOISTURE CONTENT Rr~RINR #.~ BORING ~ BORING DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN DEPTH % MOIST. HAND PEN 0-1 24.6% 0.50 0-1 36.6% 0.50 0-1 12.2% 4.50 0-1 23.7% 0.50 0-1 21.5% 1.00 0-1 28.2% 1.00 1-2 17.7% 2.00 1-2 22.6% 1.50 1-2 1 3.9% 4.50 1-2 21.4% 3.50 1-2 22.6% 2.00 1-2 6.2% 4.50 2-3 1 7.8% 4.5+ 2-3 24.7% 2.00 2-3 20.4% 3.50 2-3 19.5% 4.5+ 2-3 23.1% 2.50 2-3 17.4% 3.50 3-4 21.4% 4.5+ 3-4 23.8% 2.25 3-4 28.9% 2.25 · 3-4 18.5% 4.5+ 3-4 24.5% 2.25 3-4 23.2% 2.50 4-5 22.3% 4.5+ 4.5 27.7% 2.50 4-5 25.3% 2.00 4-5 18.5% 4.5+ 4-5 23.3% 3.00 4-5 28.8% 3.00 5-6 5-6 20.7% 4.50 5-6 27.9% 3.25 5-6 5-6 27.2% 2.50 5-6 27.9% 2.25 6-7 19.0% 3.50 6-7 23.1% 2.50 6-7 23.3% 2.25 6-7 21.4% 3.75 6-7 23.7% 2.50 6-7 20.7% 3.00 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data IMias, Texas $~ At Riv~chase 11717/00 MOISTURE CONTENT BORING 162 BORING 163 DEPTH % MOIS'r. HAND PEN DEPTH % IdOiS'r. HAND PEN 0-1 44.5% 0.25 0-1 27.8% 0.75 0-1 37.4% 0.25 0-1 22.2% 0.75 1-2 17.8% 1.50 1-2 19.0% 2.75 1-2 16.9% 2.00 1-2 10.6% 4.5+ 2-3 20.7% 2.50 2-3 1 7.3% 2.25 2-3 20.8% 3.00 2-3 20.4% 1.75 3-4 23.1% 1.75 3-4 19.9% 2.50 3-4 28.2% 1.75 3-4 26.2% 2.50 4-5 22.3% 2.00 4-5 26.5% 1.75 4-5 18.2% 2.00 4-5 27.3% 1.75 5-6 21.5% 2.50 5-6 17.7% 1.25 5-6 24.3% 2.75 5-6 24.7% 4.50 6-7 24.096 1.50 .6-7 22.9% 1.25 6-7 31.3% 1.50 6-7 23.6% 2.50 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data Dailm, Tm ~ ~-~*".c~.,': 2 Stomaelgh At Blv~.~ - ~c 00652-26 11/17/00 ABSORPTION SWELL TEST DATA DEPTH, I=1. .................. 3-4 5-6 2-3 5-6 2-3 4-5 1-2 5.6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT, PCF ................... 94 97 114 95 100 102 89 103 UQUID UMIT, % .......... PLAS'nC UMIT, % .......... PLASnCtTY mDEx (~ ..................... INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT, ~ ....... 28.5 25.5 14.0 21.8 23.7 22.3 31.2 20.8 RNAL Mom'nmE CONTENY, % ....... 29.0 29.9 15.5 28.1 25.6 23.6 33.8 24.2 PERCENT FREE 8WELL. .................... 0.7 2.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.5 BORING NO ...................................... 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 DEPTH, FT ............... 1-2 4-5 1-2 5-6 1-2 4-5 2-3 5-6 DRY uNrr WEIGHT, PCF ................... 107 118 111 119 110 103 102 106 LIQUID LIMIT, % .......... . INrTIAL MOlI'llJRE cowrENT, %. ..... 19.6 14.0 19.4 13.7 16.1 21.9 23.1 20.7 FINAL MOIS'I'tlRE CONTENT, % ........ 23.7 15.8 19.5 16.5 22.3 29.6 25.4 27.3 PERCENT FREE SWELl. .................... 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 2.8 3.3 0.6 1.4 BORING NO ...................................... 61 51 62 62 63 63 DEPTH, IrT ................ 2-3 6-7 3-4 5.6 1-2 5-6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT, PCF ................... 111 104 99 101 111 109 UQUID UMIT, % .......... INITIAL MOIGTURE CONTENT, %. ....... 20.4 22.0 25.2 23.8 17.5 17.7 FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT, % ........ 24.2 23.6 26.1 28.9 21.1 21.6 PERCENT FREE 8WELL. ................... 1.3 0.1 0.8 2.5 0.6 0.5 Spring Valley Construction Laboratory Test Data Dailm, Texas Figure 3 ~ At Riv~.~t 00652-26 11/17/00 CoPp~ Tm