TAX 2014A -SY170804
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
on
PARKWAY BOULEVARD
Between N. Hertz Road and N. Moore Road
Coppell, Texas
ALPHA Report No. G170810
Prepared for:
J. VOLK CONSULTING, INC.
830 Central Parkway East, Suite 300
Plano, Texas 75074
Attention: Mr. Jay Volk, P.E.
August 4, 2017
Prepared By:
ALPHA TESTING, INC.
2209 Wisconsin Street, Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75229
TABLE OF CONTENTS
On
ALPHA REPORT NO. G170810
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................1
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION .....................................................................................................1
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS .....................................................................................................2
5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................2
6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................3
6.1 Existing Fill Material .................................................................................................4
6.2 Potential Seasonal Movements ..................................................................................4
6.3 Pavement Subgrade ....................................................................................................4
6.4 Soluble Sulfate Test Results ......................................................................................5
6.5 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement .............................................................6
6.6 Drainage and Other Considerations ...........................................................................6
7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............7
7.1 Site Preparation and Grading .....................................................................................7
7.2 Fill Compaction ..........................................................................................................8
7.3 Groundwater ...............................................................................................................9
8.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................10
APPENDIX
A-1 Methods of Field Exploration
Boring Location Plan – Figure 1
B-1 Methods of Laboratory Testing
Swell Test Data – Figure 2
Lime Series Test Results – Figures 3A and 3B
Logs of Borings
Key to Soil Symbols and Classifications
ALPHA Report No. G170810
1
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration is for ALPHA TESTING, INC. (“ALPHA”) to
evaluate for the “Client” some of the physical and engineering properties of subsurface materials
along the proposed road with respect to formulation of appropriate geotechnical design
parameters for the proposed new construction. The field exploration was accomplished by
securing subsurface samples from widely spaced test borings performed along the proposed new
road. Engineering analyses were performed from results of the field exploration and results of
laboratory tests performed on representative samples.
Also included are general comments pertaining to reasonably anticipated construction problems
and recommendations concerning earthwork and quality control testing during construction.
This information can be used to evaluate subsurface conditions and to aid in ascertaining
construction meets project specifications.
Recommendations provided in this report were developed from information obtained in the test
borings depicting subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations and at the particular
time designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from those
observed at the boring locations. The scope of work may not fully define the variability of
subsurface materials that is present on the site. The nature and extent of variations between
borings may not become evident until construction. If significant variations then appear evident,
our office should be contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site
observations and possibly other tests.
2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
It is proposed to remove the existing pavement on Parkway Boulevard between N. Hertz Road
and N. Moore Road in Coppell, Texas and replace with new pavement. A site plan provided by
the Client illustrating the general alignment of the proposed road, with ALPHA’s boring
locations noted on it, is provided as Figure 1, titled “Boring Location Plan”, in the Appendix of
this report. According to maps available from the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG, found at www.dfwmaps.com), the topography of the proposed road is relatively
level (Elev. 466 to 462).
According to the current available information, the proposed new road will consist of portland-
cement concrete (PCC) and will be classified as a collector street. For purposes of this report, we
have assumed the final grades along the proposed new road are within 2 ft of existing grade.
The recommended pavement section for the subject road is in accordance with the City of
Coppell Standard Construction Details dated 2014.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
Subsurface conditions along the proposed new road were explored by drilling a total of six (6)
test borings (Borings 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10) in general accordance with ASTM D 420 using
standard rotary drilling equipment. Borings 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 were drilled to a depth of 10 ft each
and Boring 9 was drilled to a depth of 5 ft. A total of 10 test borings were initially scheduled for
this investigation, but testing was terminated without drilling Borings 1, 3, 5 and 7 due to
ALPHA Report No. G170810
2
potential conflict with existing underground utilities. Details of drilling and sampling operations
are briefly summarized in Methods of Field Exploration, Section A-1 of the Appendix.
Subsurface types encountered during the field exploration are presented on the Log of Boring
sheets included in the Appendix of this report. The boring logs contain our Field Technician's
and Engineer's interpretation of conditions believed to exist between actual samples retrieved.
Therefore, the boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information. Lines delineating
subsurface strata on the boring logs are approximate and the actual transition between strata may
be gradual.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTS
Selected representative samples of the subsurface materials were tested in the laboratory to
evaluate their engineering properties as a basis for providing recommendations for pavement
subgrade preparation and earthwork construction. General laboratory testing included (but was
not limited to):
Visual classification (ASTM D 2488, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS))
Natural moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216)
Atterberg limits (ASTM D 4318)
Absorption swell tests (ASTM D 4546)
Gradation tests (percentage of material passing a No. 200 sieve, ASTM D 1140)
Pocket penetrometer tests
Dry unit weight determinations
Lime Series tests(Atterberg Limits method)
Test results are shown on the enclosed Log of Boring sheets or on summary data sheets as noted.
Swell test and lime series test results are shown on Figures 2 and 3 enclosed with this report.
Three (3) soluble sulfate tests (EPA 9038) were also performed for this project. The soluble
sulfate test results are shown in Section 6.5 of this report.
A brief description of testing procedures used in the laboratory can be found in Methods of
Laboratory Testing, Section B-1 of the Appendix. Individual test results are presented on Log of
Boring sheets or on summary data sheets also enclosed in the Appendix.
5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The project site lies in area of Alluvium and Fluviatile terrace deposits underlain by the Eagle
Ford formation near Woodbine formation. The Fluviatile terrace deposits consists of
predominantly sand, silts, gravel and some clays. The Eagle Ford formation is composed of
highly expansive shaly clays, clay shale and shale with occasional thin strata of sandstone,
limestone and bentonite. Shale is generally present at deeper depths. The Woodbine formation
consists of predominantly sand and sandstone with layers of clay and varying amounts of silt.
This geologic unit was deposited in a near-shore marine environment, which accounts for the
extreme lateral variability of this formation.
Subsurface materials consist generally of clay (CH/CL), sand clay (CL) and/or clayey sand (SC)
ALPHA Report No. G170810
3
to the boring termination depths of 10 ft and 5 ft, respectively. Based on visual observations, the
upper 2 to 8 ft of subsurface material in Borings 4, 6, 9 and 10 is considered fill. About 7 inches
of concrete was encountered at the surface of all borings. The letters in parenthesis represent the
soils' classification according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487). More
detailed stratigraphic information is presented on the Log of Boring sheet attached to this report.
The granular soils (clayey sand) encountered in the borings are considered relatively permeable
and are anticipated to have a relatively rapid response to water movement. However, the clay
and sandy clay encountered in the borings are considered relatively impermeable and are
anticipated to have a relatively slow response to water movement. Therefore, several days of
observation will be required to evaluate actual groundwater levels within the depths explored.
Also, the groundwater level at the site is anticipated to fluctuate seasonally depending on the
amount of rainfall, prevailing weather conditions and subsurface drainage characteristics.
During field explorations, groundwater was not encountered during drilling in the borings. It is
common to detect seasonal groundwater either from natural fractures within the native clayey
matrix, in the fill material, in the sandy soils, particularly during or after periods of precipitation.
If more detailed groundwater information is required, monitoring wells or piezometers can be
installed.
Further details concerning subsurface materials and conditions encountered can be obtained from
the Log of Boring sheets provided in the Appendix of this report.
6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The following design recommendations were developed on the basis of the previously described
Project Characteristics (Section 2.0) and General Subsurface Conditions (Section 5.0). If project
criteria should change, including the alignment of the proposed road, our office should conduct a
review to determine if modifications to the recommendations are required. Further, it is
recommended our office be provided with a copy of the final plans and specifications for review
prior to construction.
The following design criteria given in this report were developed assuming the new road is
constructed within 2 ft from the existing grades. Further, cutting and filling on the site beyond 2
ft can alter the recommended design parameters. Therefore, it is recommended our office be
contacted before performing other cutting and filling on site to verify the appropriate design
parameters are utilized for final pavement design.
Based on Standard Construction Details from the City of Coppell for a Four-Lane Divided
Thoroughfare (Standard Detail 2020), City of Coppell standards require a Portland cement
concrete (PCC) pavement section with a thickness of at least 8 inches and a minimum
compressive strength of at least 3,600 psi. Additionally, a lime stabilized subgrade at least 8
inches thick (initial mix) is required below the pavement section per City of Coppell standards.
ALPHA Report No. G170810
4
6.1 Existing Fill
Based on visual observations, the upper 2 to 8 ft of clay material in Borings 4, 6, 9 and 10
is considered fill. There may be fill in other areas but could not be readily identified.
Also, deeper fill could exist in other areas. Composition of the fill was evaluated based
on samples retrieved from 6-inch maximum diameter boreholes.
We anticipate the existing fill soils were placed and tested during the previous road
construction. The recommendations provided below are based on the fill soils being
placed in accordance with industry standards and meets or exceeds the fill placement
criteria as discussed in Section 7.3. Fill material in pavement areas should be properly
prepared as discussed in Section 7.1 of this report.
6.2 Potential Seasonal Movements
Considering the existing subsurface conditions encountered at the borings, potential
seasonal movements on the order of 2 to 4½ inches could be expected along the proposed
road due to shrinking and swelling of active clays if constructed within 2 ft of the
existing grade.
The above potential seasonal movements were estimated using results of absorption swell
tests, in general accordance with methods outlined by TxDOT Test Method Tex-124-E
and engineering judgment and experience. Estimated movements were calculated
assuming the moisture content of the in-situ soil within the normal zone of seasonal
moisture content change varies between a "dry" condition and a "wet" condition as
defined by Tex-124-E. Movements exceeding those predicted above could occur if the
soils are exposed to an extended dry period, positive drainage of surface water is not
maintained or if soils are subject to an outside water source, such as leakage from a
utility line or subsurface moisture migration from off-site locations.
6.3 Pavement Subgrade
Clayey (native and/or possible fill) soils encountered near the existing ground surface at
the borings, or similar materials used as engineered fill for grading will constitute the
subgrade for the new road. Therefore, it is recommended the clayey materials be
improved as recommended in Section 7.1 prior to construction of the pavement. To
permit correlation between information from test borings and actual subgrade conditions
exposed during construction, a qualified Geotechnical Engineer should be retained to
provide subgrade monitoring and testing during construction. If there is any change in
project criteria, the recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed by our
office.
After final subgrade elevation is achieved, the exposed clayey surface soils should be
scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches and mixed with a minimum of 9 percent hydrated
lime (by dry soil weight) in conformance with TxDOT Standard Specifications Item 260.
Assuming an in-place unit weight of 100 pcf for the pavement subgrade soils, this
percentage of lime equates to about 54 lbs of lime per sq yard of treated subgrade. The
results of lime series tests performed on two (2) clay samples are attached to this report
ALPHA Report No. G170810
5
(Figures 3A and 3B). Lower plasticity clayey soils at the pavement subgrade may
require about 6 to 7 percent lime. In addition, the actual amount of lime required should
be confirmed by additional laboratory tests (ASTM C 977 Appendix XI) prior to
construction to verify the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture is 15 or less.
It is recommended lime stabilization procedures extend at least 1 ft beyond the edge of
the pavement to reduce effects of seasonal shrinking and swelling upon the extreme
edges of pavement. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent
of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of
0 to 4 percentage points above the mixture's optimum moisture content. In all areas
where hydrated lime is used to stabilize subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit tests
should be performed to verify the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture is 15
or less.
Mechanical lime stabilization of the pavement subgrade soil will not prevent normal
seasonal movement of the underlying untreated materials. We estimate pavement
movement due to shrinking and swelling of active clays could be on the order of 2 to 4½
inches as discussed in Section 6.2. Good perimeter surface drainage away from the
pavement is recommended. The use of sand or aggregate base as a leveling course below
pavement supported on expansive clayey soils should be avoided. Normal maintenance
of pavement should be expected over the life of the structures.
6.4 Soluble Sulfate Test Results
A total of three (3) soluble sulfate tests (EPA 9038) were performed for this project. The
sulfate testing resulted in soluble sulfate concentrations of less than 100 ppm for all the
samples tested. Test results are shown in Table A below.
Based on the results of laboratory testing, the soluble sulfate content measured in the
samples tested is considered relatively low. It should be noted that concentrations of
soluble sulfates in soil are typically very localized and concentrations in other areas of
the site could vary significantly.
TABLE A
Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Boring
No.
Material Sample
Depth
Soluble Sulfate
concentration,
mg/kg (ppm)
4 Dark Brown and
Brown Clay Fill 0-2’ <50
8 Dark Brown and
Brown Sandy Clay 2-4’ <50
10
Dark Brown and
Brown Sandy Clay
Fill
0-2’ 66
ALPHA Report No. G170810
6
6.5 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavement
Using the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedures (WinPAS computer program
distributed by American Concrete Pavement Association), the following design
parameters were used in analyses of the PCC pavement section.
Compressive strength of concrete 3,600 psi at 28 days
Modulus of Elasticity 4,050,000 psi
Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 250 pci (lime stabilized subgrade)
Load Transfer Co-efficient 3.1
Drainage Co-efficient 1.0
Initial Serviceability 4.5
Terminal Serviceability 2.5
Standard Deviation 0.35
Reliability 85 percent
Based on City of Coppell requirements, a minimum 8-inch thick PCC pavement section
is recommended for the new road. The concrete should be placed over 8 inches of
improved soil subgrade (initial mix) as recommended in Section 6.3 of this report, above.
This pavement and improved soil subgrade section meets the minimum City of Coppell
standards. The pavement section provided above is suitable for traffic volumes up to
about 3,100,000 18-kip equivalent single axle load repetitions, ESALs. The pavement
section should be re-evaluated when the projected traffic volume is available.
Concrete should be designed with 5 ± 1 percent entrained air. Joints in concrete paving
should not exceed 15 ft. Reinforcing steel for concrete pavement could consist of
No. 4 bars at 18 inches on center in each direction.
6.6 Drainage and Other Considerations
Routine maintenance, including sealing of cracks and joints should be performed over the
life of the pavement. Adequate drainage should be provided to reduce seasonal
variations in the moisture content of subgrade soils. Final grades within 5 ft of the
pavement should be adjusted to slope away from the pavement at a minimum slope of 2
percent. Maintaining positive surface drainage throughout the life of the pavement is
essential.
ALPHA Report No. G170810
7
7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Variations in subsurface conditions could be encountered during construction. To permit
correlation between test boring data and actual subsurface conditions encountered during
construction, it is recommended a registered Professional Engineering firm be retained to
observe construction procedures and materials.
Some construction problems, particularly degree or magnitude, cannot be anticipated until the
course of construction. The recommendations offered in the following paragraphs are intended
not to limit or preclude other conceivable solutions, but rather to provide our observations based
on our experience and understanding of the project characteristics and subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings.
7.1 Site Preparation and Grading
All areas supporting pavement, flatwork, or areas to receive new fill should be properly
prepared.
After completion of the necessary stripping, clearing, and excavating and prior to
placing any required fill, the exposed soil subgrade should be carefully evaluated
by probing and testing. Any undesirable material (organic material, wet, soft, or
loose soil) still in place should be removed.
The exposed soil subgrade should be further evaluated by proof-rolling with a
heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck or similar equipment weighing
approximately 20 tons to check for pockets of soft or loose material hidden
beneath a thin crust of possibly better soil.
Proof-rolling procedures should be observed routinely by a Professional Engineer,
or his designated representative. Any undesirable material (organic material, wet,
soft, or loose soil) exposed during the proofroll should be removed and replaced
with well-compacted material as outlined in Section 7.2.
Prior to placement of any fill, the exposed soil subgrade should then be scarified
to a minimum depth of 6 inches and recompacted as outlined in Section 7.2.
If fill is to be placed on existing slopes (natural or constructed) steeper than six horizontal
to one vertical (6:1), the fill materials should be benched into the existing slopes in such a
manner as to provide a minimum bench-key width of five (5) ft. This should provide a
good contact between the existing soils and new fill materials, reduce potential sliding
planes, and allow relatively horizontal lift placements.
Slope stability analysis of embankments (natural or constructed) was not within the scope
of this study.
The contractor is responsible for designing any excavation slopes, temporary sheeting or
shoring. Design of these structures should include any imposed surface surcharges.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor, who shall also be
ALPHA Report No. G170810
8
solely responsible for the means, methods and sequencing of construction operations.
The contractor should also be aware that slope height, slope inclination or excavation
depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in
local, state and/or federal safety regulations, such as OSHA Health and Safety Standard
for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations. Stockpiles should be
placed well away from the edge of the excavation and their heights should be controlled
so they do not surcharge the sides of the excavation. Surface drainage should be
carefully controlled to prevent flow of water over the slopes and/or into the excavations.
Construction slopes should be closely observed for signs of mass movement, including
tension cracks near the crest or bulging at the toe. If potential stability problems are
observed, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted immediately. Shoring, bracing or
underpinning required for the project (if any) should be designed by a professional
engineer registered in the State of Texas.
Due to the nature of the clayey soils found near the surface at the borings, traffic of heavy
equipment (including heavy compaction equipment) may create pumping and general
deterioration of shallow soils. Therefore, some construction difficulties should be
anticipated during periods when these soils are saturated.
7.2 Fill Compaction
Clayey soils used for general fill with a plasticity index equal to or greater than 25 should
be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D 698). The compacted moisture content of the clays during placement
should be within the range of +2 to +6 percentage points of the material’s optimum
moisture.
Sandy clay and clayey sand soils used for general fill with a plasticity index less than 25
should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum
dry density (ASTM D 698). The compacted moisture content of the clays during
placement should be within the range of -1 to +3 percentage points of the material’s
optimum moisture.
Clay fill should be processed and the largest particle or clod should be less than 6 inches
prior to compaction.
In cases where either mass fills or utility lines are more than 10 ft deep, the fill/backfill
below 10 ft should be compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry
density (ASTM D 698) and within – 2 to +2 percentage points of the material's optimum
moisture content. The portion of the fill/backfill shallower than 10 ft should be
compacted as outlined above.
Compaction should be accomplished by placing fill in about 8-inch thick loose lifts and
compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. Field density and
moisture content tests should be performed on each lift.
ALPHA Report No. G170810
9
Even if fill is properly compacted, fills in excess of about 10 ft are still subject to
settlements over time of up to about 1 to 2 percent of the total fill thickness. This should
be considered when designing utility lines under pavements.
7.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in borings during drilling. From our experience with
similar soils, groundwater seepage could be encountered in excavations for foundations,
utility conduits and other general excavations. The risk of encountering seepage
increases with depth of excavation and during or after periods of precipitation. Standard
sump pits and pumping may be adequate to control minor seepage on a local basis.
In any areas where cuts are made to establish final grades, attention should be given to
possible seasonal water seepage that could occur through natural cracks and fissures in
the newly exposed stratigraphy. In these cases, subsurface drains may be required to
intercept seasonal groundwater seepage. The need for these or other de-watering devices
at the site should be carefully addressed during construction. Our office could be
contacted to visually observe the final grades to evaluate the need for such drains.
ALPHA Report No. G170810
10
8.0 LIMITATIONS
Professional services provided in this geotechnical exploration were performed, findings
obtained, and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices. The scope of services provided herein does not include an
environmental assessment of the site or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous
materials in the soil, surface water or groundwater. ALPHA, upon written request, can be
retained to provide these services.
ALPHA TESTING, INC. is not responsible for conclusions, opinions or recommendations made
by others based on this data. Information contained in this report is intended for the exclusive
use of the Client (and their designated design representatives), and is related solely to design of
the specific structures outlined in Section 2.0. No party other than the Client (and their
designated design representatives) shall use or rely upon this report in any manner whatsoever
unless such party shall have obtained ALPHA’s written acceptance of such intended use.
Any such third party using this report after obtaining ALPHA’s written acceptance shall be
bound by the limitations and limitations of liability contained herein, including ALPHA’s
liability being limited to the fee paid to it for this report. Recommendations presented in this
report should not be used for design of any other structures except those specifically described in
this report. In all areas of this report in which ALPHA may provide additional services if
requested to do so in writing, it is presumed that such requests have not been made if not
evidenced by a written document accepted by ALPHA. Further, subsurface conditions can
change with passage of time. Recommendations contained herein are not considered applicable
for an extended period of time after the completion date of this report. It is recommended our
office be contacted for a review of the contents of this report for construction commencing more
than one (1) year after completion of this report. Non-compliance with any of these
requirements by the Client or anyone else shall release ALPHA from any liability resulting from
the use of, or reliance upon, this report.
Recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of information
provided by the Client about characteristics of the project. If the Client notes any deviation from
the facts about project characteristics, our office should be contacted immediately since this may
materially alter the recommendations. Further, ALPHA TESTING, INC. is not responsible for
damages resulting from workmanship of designers or contractors. It is recommended the Owner
retain qualified personnel, such as a Geotechnical Engineering firm, to verify construction is
performed in accordance with plans and specifications.
APPENDIX
ALPHA Report No. G170810
A-1 METHODS OF FIELD EXPLORATION
Using standard rotary drilling equipment, a total of six (6) test borings were performed for this
geotechnical exploration at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Plan,
Figure 1. The test boring locations were staked by either pacing or taping and estimating right
angles from landmarks which could be identified in the field and as shown on the site plan
provided during this study. The locations of test borings shown on the Boring Location Plan are
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to locate the borings.
Relatively undisturbed samples of the cohesive subsurface materials were obtained by
hydraulically pressing 3-inch O.D. thin-wall sampling tubes into the underlying soils at selected
depths (ASTM D 1587). These samples were removed from the sampling tubes in the field and
examined visually. One representative portion of each sample was sealed in a plastic bag for use
in future visual examinations and possible testing in the laboratory.
Logs of all borings are included in the Appendix of this report. The logs show visual
descriptions of subsurface strata encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System.
Sampling information, pertinent field data, and field observations are also included. Samples not
consumed by testing will be retained in our laboratory for at least 14 days and then discarded
unless the Client requests otherwise.
ALPHA Report No. G170810
B-1 METHODS OF LABORATORY TESTING
Representative samples were examined and classified by a qualified member of the Geotechnical
Division and the boring logs were edited as necessary. To aid in classifying the subsurface
materials and to determine the general engineering characteristics, natural moisture content tests
(ASTM D 2216), Atterberg-limit tests (ASTM D 4318) and gradation tests (ASTM D 1140)
were performed on selected samples. In addition, unconfined compression tests (ASTM D 2166)
and pocket-penetrometer tests were conducted on selected soil samples to evaluate soil shear
strength. Results of all laboratory tests described above are provided on the accompanying Log
of Boring sheets.
In addition to the Atterberg-limit tests, the expansive properties of the clay soils encountered
were further analyzed by absorption swell tests. The swell test is performed by placing a
selected sample in a consolidation machine and applying either the approximate current or
expected overburden pressure and then allowing the sample to absorb water. When the sample
exhibits very little tendency for further expansion, the height increase is recorded and the percent
free swell and total moisture gain calculated. Results of the absorption swell test are provided on
the Swell Test Data sheet, Figure 2 included in this appendix.
Swell Test Data
Figure 2
SWELL TEST DATA
Geotechnical Exploration
Parkway Boulevard
Between N. Hertz Road and N. Moore Road
Coppell, Texas
Alpha Report No. G170810
Liquid Limit
Final Moisture Content
Initial Moisture Content
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Dry Unit Weight, pcf
Free Swell
Boring No.
Average Depth, ft
2610
53 3
111 108 101
14 43 43
10 17 17
42626
14% 17% 20%
12% 20% 22%
0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Job No.G170810
Date 07/21/17
Sample Number:
PI 37 19 16 13 11 Location:
%Lime 0% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Description:
Tested For:
Plano, Texas Field Technician:
Project:Lab Technician:
Coppell, Texas
Project Manager:
FIGURE 3A
Lime Series
Graph
Yasser Abdelhamid
Mitch Howard
Dark Brown
Clay
Parkway Boulevard
J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
1
Boring 2
(0-2')
Jared Pitchforth
1 Out of 1 Samples Ran
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%
Job No.G170810
Date 07/21/17
Sample Number:
PI 38 20 16 13 11 Location:
%Lime 0% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Description:
Tested For:
Plano, Texas Field Technician:
Project:Lab Technician:
Coppell, Texas
Project Manager:
2
Boring 6
(0-2')
Jared Pitchforth
FIGURE 3B
1 Out of 1 Samples Ran
Lime Series
Graph
Yasser Abdelhamid
Mitch Howard
Dark Brown
Clay
Parkway Boulevard
J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%
20
21
13
15
19
56
14
19
10
37
4
7" CONCRETE
Dark Brown and Brown SANDY CLAY
Brown CLAYEY SAND
Tannish Brown and Gray CLAYEY SAND
TEST BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FT
0.6
4.0
8.0
10.0
104
3.5
3.5 2.5
.NONE
After Drilling (ft):.DRY
.
2209 Wisconsin Street
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas
75229
Phone: 972-620-8911
Fax: 972-620-1302
www.alphatesting.com
PROJECT NO.:G170810
Location:Coppell, Texas
Water Content, %% PassingNo. 200 SieveLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexGraphic LogNorth:TX Cone or Std.Pen. (blows/ft,in)Recovery %RQDSample TypeMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
West:Start Date:4/13/2017 End Date:4/13/2017
Project:Parkway Boulevard
Client:J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
Hammer Drop (lbs / in):
Surface Elevation:Unit Dry Weight(pcf)Depth, feet5
10
15
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
After Hours (ft):PocketPenetrometer (tsf)On Rods (ft):Unconfined Comp.Strength (tsf)Drilling Method:CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
LOG OF BORING NO.:2
29
13
29
15
24
76
65
41
62
35
21
16
19
16
44
25
43
19
7" CONCRETE
Dark Brown and Brown SANDY CLAY with sand -
FILL
-brown and tannish brown below 6'
Dark Brown CLAY with traces of sand and roots
TEST BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FT
0.6
8.0
10.0
116
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
.NONE
After Drilling (ft):.DRY
.
2209 Wisconsin Street
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas
75229
Phone: 972-620-8911
Fax: 972-620-1302
www.alphatesting.com
PROJECT NO.:G170810
Location:Coppell, Texas
Water Content, %% PassingNo. 200 SieveLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexGraphic LogNorth:TX Cone or Std.Pen. (blows/ft,in)Recovery %RQDSample TypeMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
West:Start Date:4/13/2017 End Date:4/13/2017
Project:Parkway Boulevard
Client:J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
Hammer Drop (lbs / in):
Surface Elevation:Unit Dry Weight(pcf)Depth, feet5
10
15
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
After Hours (ft):PocketPenetrometer (tsf)On Rods (ft):Unconfined Comp.Strength (tsf)Drilling Method:CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
LOG OF BORING NO.:4
25
16
22
25
19
58
43
52
48
20
17
17
19
38
26
35
29
7" CONCRETE
Dark Brown and Brown SANDY CLAY with sand -
FILL
Dark Brown CLAY with sand
Brown, Tannish Brown, and Gray SANDY CLAY
Dark Brown and Brown SANDY CLAY
TEST BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FT
0.6
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
2.5
4.0
3.0
4.5+
3.5
.NONE
After Drilling (ft):.DRY
.
2209 Wisconsin Street
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas
75229
Phone: 972-620-8911
Fax: 972-620-1302
www.alphatesting.com
PROJECT NO.:G170810
Location:Coppell, Texas
Water Content, %% PassingNo. 200 SieveLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexGraphic LogNorth:TX Cone or Std.Pen. (blows/ft,in)Recovery %RQDSample TypeMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
West:Start Date:4/13/2017 End Date:4/13/2017
Project:Parkway Boulevard
Client:J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
Hammer Drop (lbs / in):
Surface Elevation:Unit Dry Weight(pcf)Depth, feet5
10
15
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
After Hours (ft):PocketPenetrometer (tsf)On Rods (ft):Unconfined Comp.Strength (tsf)Drilling Method:CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
LOG OF BORING NO.:6
20
20
27
24
12
80
45
28
40
17
15
17
28
13
23
7" CONCRETE
Dark Brown and Brown SANDY CLAY
-dark brown below 2'
Dark Brown SANDY CLAY
-brown and gray below 6'
Brown SANDY CLAY
TEST BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FT
0.6
4.0
8.0
10.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
.NONE
After Drilling (ft):.DRY
.
2209 Wisconsin Street
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas
75229
Phone: 972-620-8911
Fax: 972-620-1302
www.alphatesting.com
PROJECT NO.:G170810
Location:Coppell, Texas
Water Content, %% PassingNo. 200 SieveLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexGraphic LogNorth:TX Cone or Std.Pen. (blows/ft,in)Recovery %RQDSample TypeMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
West:Start Date:4/13/2017 End Date:4/13/2017
Project:Parkway Boulevard
Client:J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
Hammer Drop (lbs / in):170 / 24
Surface Elevation:Unit Dry Weight(pcf)Depth, feet5
10
15
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
After Hours (ft):PocketPenetrometer (tsf)On Rods (ft):Unconfined Comp.Strength (tsf)Drilling Method:CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
LOG OF BORING NO.:8
10
15 33 14 19
7" CONCRETE
Brown, Tannish Brown, and Gray SANDY CLAY with
gravel - FILL
Tannish Brown SANDY CLAY - FILL
TEST BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FT
0.6
2.0
5.0
4.5+
4.5+
4.5+
.
After Drilling (ft):.
.
2209 Wisconsin Street
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas
75229
Phone: 972-620-8911
Fax: 972-620-1302
www.alphatesting.com
PROJECT NO.:G170810
Location:Coppell, Texas
Water Content, %% PassingNo. 200 SieveLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexGraphic LogNorth:TX Cone or Std.Pen. (blows/ft,in)Recovery %RQDSample TypeMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
West:Start Date:4/13/2017 End Date:4/13/2017
Project:Parkway Boulevard
Client:J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
Hammer Drop (lbs / in):170 / 24
Surface Elevation:Unit Dry Weight(pcf)Depth, feet5
10
15
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
After Hours (ft):PocketPenetrometer (tsf)On Rods (ft):Unconfined Comp.Strength (tsf)Drilling Method:CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
LOG OF BORING NO.:9
12
21
21
18
20
74
43
33
17
14
26
19
7" CONCRETE
Dark Brown and Brown SANDY CLAY with traces of
roots and gravel - FILL
Dark Brown SANDY CLAY
-brown below 4'
Tannish Brown and Gray SANDY CLAY
TEST BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FT
0.6
2.0
6.0
10.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
.NONE
After Drilling (ft):.DRY
.
2209 Wisconsin Street
Suite 100
Dallas, Texas
75229
Phone: 972-620-8911
Fax: 972-620-1302
www.alphatesting.com
PROJECT NO.:G170810
Location:Coppell, Texas
Water Content, %% PassingNo. 200 SieveLiquid LimitPlastic LimitPlasticity IndexGraphic LogNorth:TX Cone or Std.Pen. (blows/ft,in)Recovery %RQDSample TypeMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
West:Start Date:4/13/2017 End Date:4/13/2017
Project:Parkway Boulevard
Client:J. Volk Consulting, Inc.
Hammer Drop (lbs / in):170 / 24
Surface Elevation:Unit Dry Weight(pcf)Depth, feet5
10
15
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Sheet 1 of 1
After Hours (ft):PocketPenetrometer (tsf)On Rods (ft):Unconfined Comp.Strength (tsf)Drilling Method:CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
LOG OF BORING NO.:10
TEXAS CONE PENETRATION
FILL
LIMESTONE
(MH), Elastic SILT
SANDSTONE
(GP), Poorly Graded GRAVEL
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY HIGH
4 TO 15
16 TO 25
26 TO 35
OVER 35
SAMPLING SYMBOLS
(OL), ORGANIC SILT
(OH), ORGANIC CLAY
8.0" OR LARGER
3.0" TO 8.0"
0.75" TO 3.0"
5.0 mm TO 3.0"
2.0 mm TO 5.0 mm
0.4 mm TO 5.0 mm
0.07 mm TO 0.4 mm
0.002 mm TO 0.07 mm
LESS THAN 0.002 mm
SOIL & ROCK SYMBOLS
KEY TO SOIL SYMBOLS
AND CLASSIFICATIONS
(CH), High Plasticity CLAY VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM
DENSE
VERY DENSE
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS (blows/ft)
0 TO 4
5 TO 10
11 TO 30
31 TO 50
OVER 50
SHELBY TUBE (3" OD except where
noted otherwise)
SPLIT SPOON (2" OD except where
noted otherwise)
AUGER SAMPLE
ROCK CORE (2" ID except where
noted otherwise)
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION (DIAMETER)
(CL), Low Plasticity CLAY
(SP), Poorly Graded SAND
(GW), Well Graded GRAVEL
(GC), CLAYEY GRAVEL
(GM), SILTY GRAVEL
BOULDERS
COBBLES
COARSE GRAVEL
FINE GRAVEL
COURSE SAND
MEDIUM SAND
FINE SAND
SILT
CLAY
TRACE
LITTLE
SOME
AND
1 TO 10
11 TO 20
21 TO 35
36 TO 50
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS (%)
VERY SOFT
SOFT
FIRM
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
LESS THAN 0.25
0.25 TO 0.50
0.50 TO 1.00
1.00 TO 2.00
2.00 TO 4.00
OVER 4.00
SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS (tsf)
RELATIVE DEGREE OF PLASTICITY (PI)SHALE / MARL
(SC), CLAYEY SAND
(SW), Well Graded SAND
(SM), SILTY SAND
(ML), SILT