Villages of CC 4-SY 920831HGI Job No. 92.217
Subsurface Investigation
JIM SOWELL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Residential Development
Coppell Road/Parkway Boulevard
Coppell, Texas
Report to
Jim Sowell Construction Co., Inc.
Dallas, Texas
By
Hooper Group, Inc.
4308 Sunbelt Drive
Dallas, Texas 75248
Tel 214/931-8222
August 31, 1992
Hoopor Group, Inc, · GeotechnJcal Engineering Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................. 1
LABORATORY TESTING ............................................... 2
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Topography .................................................. 3
Geology of the Site ............................................. 3
Soil/Rock Profile ............................................... 3
Shrink/Swell Movement .......................................... 4
Groundwater ................................................. 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pavement Subgrade Preparation .................................... 5
Site Fill and Fill Beneath Buildings ................................... 5
Shallow Foundations ............................................ 6
Landscaping Near Building Lines .................................... 7
Surface Drainage Plan ........................................... 7
SUMMARY ........................................................ 8
LIMITATIONS ...................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ............................... 11
BORING LOCATIONS ................................................ 16
LOG OF BORINGS .................................................. 17
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED EARTHWORK ........................... 32
Hooper Group. Inc. · Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
INTRODUCTION
This investigation was conducted to determine the geotechnical engineering
characteristics of the subsurface soil/rock profile at the residential development that is
planned at Coppell Road and Parkway Boulevard in Coppell, Texas. The subsurface
conditions were evaluated in order to formulate recommendations for foundation design
and pavement subgrade preparation for the proposed development.
Fourteen test borings were drilled at specific locations that were selected
by the geotechnical engineer to represent the new residential development. Each of these
test borings was drilled to a depth that is sufficient to evaluate the soil/rock profile for
consideration of shallow foundation systems to support the lightly loaded structures.
A drawing is included in thi~ report that notes the boring locations
referenced to the property lines shown on the site plan furnished to the geotechnical
engineer by The Nelson Corporation.
FIELD EXPLORATION
Test borings were advanced with a truck mounted rotary drill using a
continuous flight auger. Since this method of drilling does not require the use of water,
there was no moisture contamination of the subsurface soils that were sampled.
Undisturbed samples of the subsurface cohesive soils were obtained using
a thin wall Shelby tube sampler, and the samples were ejected in the field to examine for
sample quality and testability. Disturbed samples of harder subsurface layers were
obtained with a thick wall tube sampler for visual identification of the soil or rock type.
The Iow cohesion soils found in the subsurface profile cannot be sampled
in a condition that would allow for effective strength testing in the laboratory, and were
evaluated in-place using the Standard Penetration Test apparatus. This test consists of
92.217
Hooper Group, In~. · Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
1
driving a two inch diameter, split-spoon sampler into the soil layer with blows from a 140
pound weight dropped with a 30 inch free fall. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler 1 2 inches is a value that can be correlated to the allowable bearing capacity for
the coarse grained soil, and the blow count penetration is recorded on the boring logs at
the test depth.
The harder soils and grey shale found in the subsurface profile at this site
were tested in place using the Texas Cone Penetrometer. The modified test consists of
driving a three inch diameter cone into the soil or rock stratum with blows from a 140
pound weight dropped with a 30 inch free fall. The number of blows required to drive the
cone 12 inches or the distance penetrated with 100 blows is a value that can be
correlated to allowable bearing capacity for the rock stratum. The blow count penetration
is recorded on the boring log at the test depth.
Each soil and rock sample was sealed in a polyethylene bag to maintain the
in-place moisture content, and packed in a protective wooden box for transporting to the
laboratory.
LABORATORY TE~TING
Each soil sample was visually examined by an experienced soils technician,
and classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
Undisturbed soil samples were trimmed to required testing dimensions, and
tested for in-place water content, dry unit weight and unconfined compressive strength.
The results of these tests give the normal engineering characteristics required for
evaluatidg the shear strength and consistency of fine grained soils found in the subsurface
profile.
Soil or rock samples obtained at the time of the Texas Cone Penetration
92.217
Hooper Group. Inc. · Geote~hnical Enginee~ng Consultants
2
Test are disturbed from their in-place condition, and are tested in the laboratory for in-
place moisture only.
Representative samples of each fine grained soil type found in the
subsurface profile were tested for Atterberg Limit values. These index values give an
indication of the potential soil volume change that might occur when there are changes
in the soil moisture content.
GENERAL CONDITIONS - TooooraDhv
The ground surface at this site at Coppell Road and Parkway Boulevard is
relatively flat terrain. The relatively flat ground surface will not cause surface water to
drain off of the site readily, and is an undesirable drainage feature that should be
corrected in the design of the final grading plan for the development of the property.
There is a solid cover of grass and weeds growing on the site, and stripping
to a depth of one to two inches will be necessary to remove this vegetation prior to
pavement and foundation construction. Several medium to large trees were also found
growing on the site.
Geoloov of the Site - Woodbine Sand
This site is located in an area of Dallas County where the Woodbine Sand
geological formation outcrops, and this age of deposition consists of sands, sandstone,
shale layers and some high plasticity clays. The formation is quite variable, and there are
locations where the sands, sandstones and fat clays occur in highly irregular patterns.
Soil/Rock Profile
Samples obtained from the test borings show the surface soil is generally
92.217
Hooper Group, Inc. · Geotechnicai Engineering Consultants
3
a sand, clayey sand or sandy clay that has Iow plasticity characteristics (PI = 4 to 1 6).
The sand, clayey sand or sandy clay will contribute nominal shrink/swell activity to the
soil profile with seasonal changes in the soil moisture content. The sand, clayey sand or
sandy clay has moderate bearing capacity, and the soils could be used for support of
lightly loaded foundations. These soils are dense to hard in consistency, moist in water
content and extended to depths of six feet to seventeen feet at the test boring locations.
Dark brown to tan and grey clay to shaley clay is found below the sand,
clayey sand or sandy clay. The clay to shaley clay is stiff to hard in consistency, moist
in water content, and extended to the termination depth of several of the test borings at
twenty feet, and to depths of eleven feet to twelve and one half feet at the test boring
locations.
Grey shale is found below the clays or sands. The shale is a medium hard
rock in consistency, is moist in water content, and extended to the termination depth of
the test borings at twenty feet.
Shrink/Swell Movement
Total shrink/swell potential for this soil profile is in the range of one inch as
the soils go from a dry weather condition to a point of complete saturation. Shrink/swell
movements should be within the range of tolerance for a stiff shallow foundation
systems.
t~roundwater
Groundwater was found in eight of the fourteen test borings drilled for this
investigation, at depths of four and one half feet to seven feet below the existing ground
surface.
92.217
Hooper Group. Inc. · Geotechnical £ngine~in~ Consultants
RECOMMENDATIONS
Pavement Subarade Preparation
The subgrade soils at this site consist of Iow plasticity soils with plasticity
indices in the range of 4 to 16. Stabilization of the subgrade soil is not recommended for
this site. The City of Coppell, however, may have a minimum stabilization requirement.
Prior to concrete placement, the top six inches of subgrade soil should be scarified,
wetted and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor)
maximum density at a moisture content within three percent of optimum. The compacted
subgrade should be tested for in-place density and moisture content at a frequency of one
test per 5,000 sauare feet, within 48 hours of pavement construction.
Concrete pavements should be placed directly on the prepared subgrade
outlined above, and a subgrade modulus of 150 should be used in the thickness design
of the pavement.
$il;e Fill and Fill Beneath Buildinos
On-site soils or soils of a similar character could be used to raise the grade
for the building pads. The fill should be placed in thin lifts (6 to 12 inches), and should
be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor)
maximum density. The moisture content of the fill should be within three percent of
optimum during compaction.
Density of the fill is very important, and each compacted lift should be
tested in-place at a frequency of one test per 2,500 souare feet in the building areas. If
the fill operations are continuous between lots, the frequency of testing could be lowered
to one test per 10.000 souare feet of compacted area. Earthwork will be designed and
constructed in accordance with HUD data sheet 79G, see Specifications for Controlled
92.217
Hooper Group, Inc.. GeotechnJcal Engineering Consultants
5
Earthwork, page 32.
Shallow Foundations
The soil/rock profile at this site consists of Iow to moderate plasticity soils
for a considerable depth. If foundation and floor slab movements in the range of one inch
can be tolerated, shallow foundation systems could be used at this site. If these
movements are considered excessive for shallow foundation design, deeper foundation
systems with suspended floor systems should be used at this site.
The weighted plasticity index for the site is in the range of 15 or less, and
according to the BRAB criteria, a stiff "waffle" slab is appropriate for these conditions.
Potential vertical rise calculations indicate a potential for movement in the range of one
inch for the top twelve feet of soil profile.
The following parameters should be used for the design of post tension
foundation systems:
Differential swell for edge lift --
Differential swell for center lift =
Type of clay --
Percent passing US #200 sieve =
Depth to constant suction =
Constant suction value =
Velocity of moisture =
Edge moisture variation, edge lift =
Edge moisture variation, center lift =
0.4 inches
0.8 inches
montmorillinite
40 percent
7 feet
3.4 pF
0.7 in./month
4.0 feet
5.0 feet
Grade beams should be set in the natural soil profile, or in uniformly
compacted and tested fill, at a minimum depth of twelve inches below finished grades.
An allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 osf should be used to size these structural
members. The beams should be cast monolithic with the floor slab to give added
stiffness to the foundation system.
92.217
Hooper Group. Inc. · Geotechnlcal Engineering Consultants
6
Finished floor elevations should be set high enough above the final exterior
grades around the building perimeter so that a positive flow of water away from the
foundation is assured. The ground surface should slope away from the perimeter of the
residences a minimum of one foot vertical in.ten feet horizontal, and should be maintained
for a minimum distance of six feet.
Please note that there is not a treatment method available that will
completely eliminate all cracks in a concrete floor slab. If every effort is made to properly
design and construct the floor slab, however, the potential for floor slab movements and
resultant cracks will be reduced greatly.
If the predicted movements are objectionable, the floor slabs can be
designed as suspended structural floors, supported on pier and beam foundation systems.
Landscaoin¢~ Near Building Lines
Irrigation water for landscaping is a source of problems where shallow
foundation systems are used. Landscaping beds should be designed to be above the
finished grades around the buildings, so that excess irrigation water is not allowed to
penetrate into the subgrade soils. A polyethylene sheet attached to the grade beam, or
some other form of perimeter waterproofing, is necessary to prevent irrigation water from
penetrating into the subgrade soils.
Surface Drainac~e Plan
The subsurface soils at this site are sensitive to changes in soil moisture
content, and an effective surface drainage plan is vital to the successful performance of
shallow foundation systems. All surface moisture should be drained away from the
structures and not allowed to pond near the building perimeters. Allowing moisture to
92.217
Hoopor Group. Inc. · Geotechnical Enginee~ng Consultants
7
penetrate into the subsurface soils will result in swelling soil movements that will have
an adverse effect on shallow foundation systems and pavement surfaces, and should be
avoided.
Currently there are rather poor drainage conditions due to the relatively flat
topography at the site, and final grades should be designed to correct this unfavorable
drainage condition.
Roof drains will collect a significant amount of water at distinct locations
around the building line. It is important that this water is discharged far enough away
from the building perimeters to prevent the water from entering the subgrade soils. A
distance of three feet should be considered a minimum. It is preferable that this rainwater
is drained on the ground surface rather than to use subsurface drains that can become
clogged or broken without being noticed.
SUMMARY
This site for the residential development at Coppell Road and Parkway
Boulevard is located in an area of Dallas County where the Woodbine Sand geological
formation outcrops, and the soil/rock profile is typical of that formation. There is a
surface layer of Iow plasticity sand, clayey sand or sandy clay, and a layer of high
plasticity clay overlying a firm grey shale. Groundwater was found in eight of the
fourteen test borings drilled for this investigation.
There will be nominal shrink/swell movements in the soil/rock profile as
there are changes in the soil moisture content, and shallow foundation systems could be
used at this site. The top twelve inches of subgrade soil should scarified, wetted and
recompacted. Soil parameters are provided for design of post tension foundation
systems.
92.217
Hooper Group. Inc. · Geotechnical Enginee~fn; Consultants
8
Landscaping water can cause problems where shallow foundation systems
are used. The landscaping beds at this site should be set high enough above final exterior
grades so that excess irrigation water drains away from the building perimeters and is not
allowed to penetrate into the subgrade soils.
Stabilization of the subgrade soil is not recommended for the public streets.
Effective control of surface water is very important where there are high
to very high plasticity clays in the soil profile. The final grading plan should be designed
to assure that all surface water flows away from the structures without allowing
substantial penetration of water into the active clay soils.
Roof drains should discharge rain water at least three feet from the building
lines to prevent water from entering the highly expansive subgrade soils.
LIMITATIONS
Every effort has been made to properly evaluate the subsurface conditions
at this site based on the samples recovered from the test borings and the results of
laboratory tests on these samples. However, it must be recognized that the conclusions
reached in this report were based on the conditions at the fourteen test boring locations.
Our professional services were performed, our findings were obtained, and our
recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles
and practices.
To assure that recommendations made in this report are properly interpreted
and implemented in the final plans and specifications, a general review of the final plans
and specifications by the geotechnical engineer is recommended. If the geotechnical
engineer is not provided an opportunity to make this review, he can assume no
responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations.
92.217
Hooper Group. Inc. · Geotechnical Engineer/nE Col~&dtltl~t~
9
Should any unusual conditions be encountered during construction of this
project, this office should be notified immediately so that further investigation and
supplemental recommendations can be made.
Respectfully submitted,
David Hooper, M.Engr., P.E.
Consulting Geotechnical Engineer
Texas 69931
92.217
Hooper Group. Inc. · GeotechnJcal Engineering Consultants
10
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
HGI Job No. 92.217
Date= 08/07/92
Boring Depth Soil Description Water
No. Feet Content
CLass
1 2 SANDY CLAY, orange,
1 4
1 9
SAND, orange,
with some fine grave[
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
1 l& SHALE, grey,
1 19 SHALE, grey,
2 2
CLAYEY SAND, tan & orange,
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
2 9 SHALE, grey,
SHALE, grey,
2 19 SHALE, grey,
CLAYEY SAND, tan & orange,
SAND, orange,
with some fi~e gravel
SHALE, grey,
SHALE, grey,
3 19 SHALE, grey,
Dry Liquid PLasticity Unconfined Unit
Unit Limit Index Coepressive Strain
Weight Strength
pcf ~ ~ ksf %
CL 14.7 112 35 16 6.1 2.7
sp 5.6
sP 5.5
Sh 15.8
Sh 18.1
SC 12.9 30.2~ Minus 200 Mesh
SP 4.7
Sh 18.2
Sh 15.9
Sh 15.6
SC 14.9 19 9
Sp 3.8
Sh 15.9
Sh 14.6
Sh 16.5
92.217
Hoopor Group. In~. - G~technical Engineering Consultants
11
SUI~I~,RY OF LABOI~TORY TEST RESULTS
HGI Job No. 92.2L7
Date: 08/07/92
Boring Depth Soil Description Water
No. Feet Content
CLass
4 2
4 4
SAND, tan & orange,
with some fine gravel SP 4.6
SAND, tan & orange,
with some fine gravel
SHALE, grey,
4 14 SHALE, grey,
4 19 SHALE, grey,
5 2 SAND, tan & orange,
5 4
SAND, tan & orange,
with some fine gravel
5 9 SHALE, grey,
SHALE, grey,
5 19 SHALE, grey,
6 2
6 4
CLAYEY SAND, orange,
SANDY CLAY, tan & grey,
6 9 SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
6 14
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
6 19 CLAY, tan & grey,
SP 5.5
Sh 15.6
Sh 16.2
Sh 16.4
SP 5.3
SP 3.2
Sh 15.6
Sh 15.5
Sh 16.2
Dry Liquid Ptasticity Unconfined Unit
Unit Limit Index .Compressive Strain
Weight Strength
pcf ~ ~ ksf
3.6~ Minus 200 Mesh
3.2% Minus 200 Mesh
SC 12.9
CL 27.2 90 46 26
SP 11.9
SP 10.8
CH 30.3 93 66 42 2.6 3.5
92.217
Hooper Group, Inc. · Geofechnical Engineering Consultants
12
SUI~,V,~.Y OF L~,BOI~,TORY TEST RESULTS
HG~ ~ob No. 92.2L7
D&~e~ 08[07/92
Boring Depth Soil Description Uater
No. Feet Content
Class
7 2 SAND, orange,
7 4 SAND, dark brown,
? 9 CLAY, dark brown,
7 1~ CLAY, dark brown,
? 19 CLAY, dark brown,
8 2
CLAYEY SAND, tan & orange,
8 4 SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
8 9 SHALE, grey,
8 14 SHALE, grey,
8 19 SHALE, grey,
9 Z SANO, orange,
9 4
SANDY CLAY, tan & orange,
9 9 CLAY, dark brown,
9 14 CLAY, dark brown,
9 19 CLAY, dark brown,
SP 7.3
SP 8.2
Dry Liquid Plasticity Unconfined Unit
Unit Limit Index Coepressive Strain
Weight Strength
I:x:f ~ · ksf ~
14.1~ Minus 200 Mesh
Minus 200 Mesh
CH 33.4 86 53 40
CH 30.4 93 1.9 7.3
CH 25.4 100 3.5 9.1
SC 12.5
SP 10.9
Sh 17.9
Sh 18.5
Sh 16.2
SP 9.4
Minus 200 Mesh
CL 14.7 113 25 10
CH 35.6 85 53 35
CH 29.8 90
CH 24.3 101 3.0 6.1
92.217
Hoopor Group, Ir~.. · Geot~Anical Engineering Consultants
13
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
HGI ~ob No. 92.217
Date: 08/07/92
Boring Depth Soil Description Water
No. Feet Content
CLass
10 2
10 4
10 9
CLAYEY SAND, orange,
CLAYEY SAND, orange,
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
10 14 SHALE, grey,
10 19 SHALE, grey,
11 2 SANDY CLAY, orange,
11 4 SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
11 9
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
11 14 SHALE, grey,
11 19 SHALE, grey,
1Z Z
CLAYEY SAND, orange,
12 4 SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
12 9 SHALE, grey,
12 14 SHALE, grey,
12 19 SHALE, grey,
Dry Liquid PLasticity Unconfined Unit
Unit Limit Index Cm~ressive Strain
Weight Strength
pcf % % ksf %
SC 14.2 114 1.5 4.1
SC 10.8 120 22 8 1.9 4.0
SP 9.3
Sh 17.0
Sh 18.6
CL 16.0 112 33 15 4.1 2.7
SP 14.0
SP 8.6
Sh 17.2
Sh 16.4
SC 9.8 119 15 4
SP 7.8
Sh 15.6
Sh 18.1
Sh 14.3
11.6% Minus 200 Mesh
92.217
Hoopor Group, lng. · Geoteg=hnical Engineering Consultant;
14
SUMMARY OF LABOR~TORY TEST RESULTS
HGI Job No. 92.217
Date: 08/07/92
Boring Depth Soil Description Water
No. Feet Content
Crass
13 2
13 4
CLAYEY SAND, orange,
SAND, orange,
with so~e fine gravel
13 9 SHALE, grey,
13 14 SHALE, grey,
13 19 SHALE, grey,
14 Z
CLAYEY SAND, orange,
14 4 CLAY, tan & grey,
14 9
14 14
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
SAND, orange,
with some fine gravel
14 19 CLAY, tan & grey,
SC 8.2
SP 7.6
Sh 16.3
Sh 16.1
Sh 16.0
Dry Liquid Ptasticity Unconfined Unit
Unit Limit Index Coapressive Strain
Weight Strength
pcf ~ ~ ksf ~
17.2% Minus 200 Mesh
CL 25.9 42 25
SP 11.6
SP 9.8
CH 30.8 93 57 32 2.2 5.1
92.217
Hooper Group, Inc. · Geotechnical Engineering Comultants
15
Project=
Client
Job No
COPPELL ROAD
Boring Locations
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
COPPELL , TEXAS
JIM SOWELL DEVELOPMENT
92. 217 31
<~ NORTH
SCALE i"' 500
CORP.
AUGUST 92
92.217
16
LOG OF BORINGS
The boring logs and related information depict subsurface conditions
at the specific locations and at the particular time designated on
the logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from the
conditions found at these boring locations, and with the passage of
time, soil conditions at these boring locations may change.
92.217
Hooper Group, Inc. · Geo~chnie41 En~in~4r[ng Cormultant~
17
Log of Boring
PROaECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 1
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
aDB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION:
,.
I~ IU ii. Z · LEGEND: B- BAG
(]. [.. ~ ~ ~ ~ -- SHELBY TUBE C -- CORE
~ ~ ~ ~ P- ETD PEN TEBT X -- NO RECOVERY
· 0 ~ T -- THD CONE TEST ~-- WATER TABLE
~ ~ E m ~ DESCRIPTION OF 5TRATUM
s 4.~ + O~nge sand~ cla~, h~d ~ mois~
P 81~110 ~"'
O~nge s~nd ~ g~vel, medium dense ~
~ 7.0'
P 8/8/11
10.0'
Grey shaley clay, hard & moist 11.0'
Grey shale, medium hard & moist
T 50/1.75"
T 5011.75"
End of boring 20'
Hoope~ Group. I~. · G~t~h~c~ EngJnee~ Co~tant$
92.217
18
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BONING NO: 2
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION:
n.
· LEGEND: B -- BAG
~ ~ ~Z ~ P- .TD PEN TEST X- NO RECOVERY
~ u T- THD CONE TEST ~-- WATER TABLE
· o
K Zm
e W = [ W DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
· .~,~ P s/8/9 Tan & orange clayey sand, medium dense & moist
3.0'
P 11/14/1~'
OranGe sand & Gravel, medium dense & moist ~ 5.0'
7.0'
· so/~.o- Grey shale, medium hard & moist
~ T 50/1.75·
T 50/2.25
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group. I~. · G~t~h~c~ Engi~i~ Co~tant.
92.217
19
Log of Boring
PROUECT: Residential Development BORINO NO-' 3
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: CoppelI, Texas
JoB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: _
W Itl a- Z ' LEGEND: B- BAG i.~
F-
B O_ ~ S -- SHELBY TUBE C -- CORE a.
),. Ig I- i. ~ P -- BTD PEN TEST X -- NO RECOVERY ;~
~' 2~ Io o
, W 0 .j T -- THD CONE TEST ?-- WATER TABLE --
:2 >
Wii,Z W a,W~ DESCRiPTiON OF STRATUM .~
a. I- m
P 12/14/1.~ Tan & orange clayey sand, medium dense & moist
3.5'
-- p 9/11/11 '
Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist ~7 5.0'
7.0'
T 5o/1.25 Grey shale, medium hard & moist
T 50/1.251 ~
T 50/1.50'
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group. /nc. · Geotechnicei Engineering Consultants
92.217
20
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 4
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
dOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION:
0 ~ S -- SHELBY TUBE O -- CORE
~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ P -- .TD PEN TEST X -- NO RECOVERY
~ 2~ ~o
~ a m
a ~ z m m DESCRiPTiON OF ~TRATUM
P 7/s/s Tan & orange sand, medium dense & moist
3.0'
P 12/9/1(
- Tan & oran~ sand & ~ravol, modium donso ~ moist
6.5'
T 50/1.7L" Grey shale, medium hard & moist
~ T 50/2.0'
) T 50/2.0'
End of boring 20'
5
Hooper Group, I~. · G~t~h~cai Engin~i~ Co~tants
92.217 21
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 5
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION:
ltl Itl u. Z ~D LEGEND: B- BAG I.~
~ ~N O~ ~ ~ ON ~ P-- 8TD PEN TEST X-- NO RECOVERY ~
~ T -- THD CONE TEST ~-- WATER TABLE 0
< zm m m
~ ~ ; [ ~ DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM ~ j
P 3/5/5 Tan & orange sand, medium dense & moist
3.5'
P 9/11/11
Tan & orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist
6.0'
T SO/I.2S" Grey shale, medium hard & moist
T 50/2.0"
T 50/1.0"
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group, I~. · G~t~h~caJ E~in~r/~ Co~ultants
92.217
22
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 6
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
uoB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION:
n. Z · LEGEND: B- BAG
WI' ~ ~- ~) __0 ~ B-- SHELBY TUBE C-- CORE
~ m° I- ~ ~ P -- STD PEN TEST X -- NO RECOVERY
~ 2 W 0 Z~ g T -- THD CONE TEST V-- WATER TABLE 0
W ( ZW ~0
a i~ ~ i~, ~. ~ DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM w'l
~!~ P 3/6/9 Orange clayey sand, medium dense & moist
-s '////~. Orange sandy clay, very stiff & moist 5.5'
Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist
grey clay, very stiff & moist
Tan
20* S 2.0
End of boring 20'
-25-
'35-
-40-
/"looper Gtoup. Inc. · Geotechnic41 Engineering ConsuJtant$
92.217
23
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 7
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: C0ppell, Texas
JOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: -
Il: ~ ~ LEGEND: E- BAG I'~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P-- 8TD PEN TEBT X-- NO RECOVERY
~ ~ ~ :~ ~o o
~ I 0 j T -- THO CONE TEST ~-- WATER TABLE
m 4 zmm~ m
--~,~:~ P 7/~o~ Orange sand, medium dense & moist
~'~;'~.;~' ~ 8/1 2/1 1
~;;':~':~':~ Dark brown sand, medium dense & moist
7.0'
~ 2.o ~ark brown cla~, ~tiff · moist
18, S 1.50
20 S 2.0
End of boring 20'
.30-
-35.
,40-
Hooper Group. I~. · G~t~h~cW Engi~e~ Co~tants
92.217 24
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 8
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: -
~ ~ ~ ·z CEGE--O: O -- BAG
~ ~ ~ ~ ~°- ~ s- S.EL.Y TUB. C-- CORE
~ ~ ~ ~m T -- THD CONE TEST ~-- WATER TABLE
~ P ~o/s/s Tan & orange clayey sand, medium dense & moist
'~':'~":':~:~ P 13/1 2/1 ~ 3.0'
Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist
T 50/1.S0"~' Grey shale, medium hard & moist 8.0,
T 50/2.0"
T 50/2.0"
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group. /~. · Geot~h~ca/ Eng/neeri~ ConStants
92.217 25
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 9
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DroLLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: -
"' ~ LEGEND: B
I" ~ UJ ~l ~ ~ S -- SHELBY TUBE C
~~~~ ~ ~ [ .--.T..~- ~--~ x--.o.~ov,.~
I 0 T -- THD CONE TEST
· 4 Z M ; DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
~.~.~:~:~..-.-~:
~:?~': ~ p 6~ Orange sand, medium dense & moist
3.5'
~ ~ Tan & orange sandy clay, very stiff & moist
s 2.o Dark brown cla~, stiff · moist
find of borin~
'~0'
92.217 26
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 10
CUENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION:
· Iii I1. Z · LEGEND: B- BAG
A, I- ~ _0 ~ ~ -- SHELBY TUBE ~ -- ~ORE
~ . ~ ~ ~ P -- ETD PEN TEST X -- NO RECOVERY
-
" ~ ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
~ s ~.~o Oran~ clayey ~ravol, stiff ~ moist
':" ......... :" P 9/10/lC Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist
11.0'
Grey shaley clay, hard & moist 1 2.5'
T S0/2.0" Grey shale, medium hard & moist
T 50/1.25 -
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group. I~. · G~t~h~cal EngJnee~/ng Co~tants
92.217
27
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO'. 11
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NO= 92.217 SORING TYPE= Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: -
Iil &l U. Z ~ LEGEND: B- BAG i
~. I.- ~ ~ ~ S -- SHELBY TUBE C -- CORE
~S~ ~ ~ ~ P-- STD PEN TEST X-- NO RECOVERY
= ~ ~ ~ ~ T -- THO CONE '''' V-- WATER TABLE 0
_ ~m
; ~ [Z M & ~; DESCRiPTiON OF STRATUM
s 4.s+ Orange sandy clay, hard & moist
3.5'
P 4/6/6
Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist
P 7/7/9
10.5'
Grey shaley clay, hard & moist 12.0'
T so/~.2s Grey Shale, medium hard & moist
T 50/1
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group, I~. · G~t~h~c~ Engi~r/~ Co~tants ,,
92.217
28
Log of Boring
PROJECT: Residential Development BORING NO: 12
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JoB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: _
~ ~ m ~ z · LEGEND:
~ ~ ~ ~ h F ~ P -- 6TD PEN TEEm X -- NO RECOVERY
2 ~o
~ U . _ h . j T -- THD CONE TEST ?-- WATER TABLE
· ( ~
~ ~ ~ ~ DESCRIPTION OF 6TRATUM
s ~.o Orange clayey sand, medium dense & moist
3.5'
P 7/9~
Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist ~ 5.0'
7.0'
T SO/2.0" Gre~ shale, medium dense & moist
1]
1 I T 50/1.50"
;: T S0n.S0"~
End of boring 20'
· 40 Hooper Group, I~. '
92.217 29
Log of Boring
PROdECT: Residential Development BORING NO= 13
CLIENT: Jim Sowell Development Corp. LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
dOB NO: 92.217 BORING TYPE: Solid Auger
DATE: 08/05/92 DRILLER: Williams GROUND ELEVATION: .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P -- 8TD PBN TBBT X -- NO RBCOVERY
~a m
g ~ ~ · ~ DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM
P s/s/4 Orange clayey sand, medium dense & moist
3.5'
. 7~ ,~ 4.5'
Orange sand & gravel, medium dense & moist
7.0'
T S0/~.S0' Grey shale, medium dense & moist
T 50/1.75'
T 50/1.50'
End of boring 20'
Hooper Group, I~. · G~t~h~cal E~in~ Co~tants
92.217
30
Specifications for Controlled Earthwork
This item consists of general specifications for the preparation of land to be filled, filling
operations, spreading, compaction, control of the fill and related work necessary to
complete the grading of cut and fill areas to conform with project plans and
specifications.
Grubbing, Excavation and Preparation for Filling Operations
1. All vegetation should be removed from the building areas and burned or discarded.
Trees that are to be removed should be removed in their entirety, including stumps and
all roots. The holes that are left after clearing of tree roots should be backfilled and
compacted to the specifications outlined below.
2. Soil that is excavated from cut areas could be stockpiled and used for fill in areas
where fill is required. Prior to using this material, all deleterious materials should be
removed, i.e., vegetation and other organic materials. If the soil is within the specified
moisture content range, the soil can be placed at the natural moisture content.
Modification will be necessary if the soil moisture content is outside the specified limits.
3. Prior to placing fill, the top six inches of subgrade soil should be scarified, wetted
and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor)
maximum density. The fill should be within three percent of optimum during
compaction.
4. The materials that are used for fill should be native to the site, and could consist of
clays and chalky clays or weathered limestone. The fill should be free of organic
material, and rocks greater than six inches in diameter. No rocks will be permitted
within twelve inches of finished grade.
Compaction and Control of Earthwork
1. Fill should be placed in thin lifts (6 to 1 2 inches) and compacted to a minimum of 95
percent of maximum density as determined in the laboratory by ASTM D698 (Standard
Proctor). The fill should be placed at a moisture content within three percent of
optimum during compaction.
2. Moisture content and in-place density of the fill is very important, and each lift of fill
should be tested in-place at a frequency of one test per 2.500 m3uare feet of building
area. If the fill is placed continuously between building pads, the frequency of testing
could be reduced to one test per 10.000 souare feet of compacted area.
92.217
Heoper Group, I~. · Ge~teelmigal Engineen'ng Consultants
32