ST9401-SY 950518Geotechnical Study
DENTON TAP ROAD
COPPELL, TEXAS
Presented to
c~ty of coppdw
May 1995
Prepared by the
Fort Worth, Texas Office of
Eracon
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Offices Nationwide
5701 East Loop 820 South
Fort Worth, Texas 76119
817/478-8254 Metro 572-3411
5701 East Loop 820 South · Fort Worth, Texas 76119-7051 · (817) 478-8254 · Metro (817) 572-3411 · Fax (817) 478-8874
May 18, 1995
Report No. 62958-001-001
Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Assistant City Manager, City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019-0478
Geotechnical Study Denton Tap Road
Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppell, Texas
Dear Mr. Griffin:
The results of our geotechnical study for the proposed road and bridge improvements are
presented in the following engineering report. Recommendations for foundations and
earthwork are provided in this report. Field and laboratory test data, developed for this
study, are also included.
The study was authorized by your signature and return of the contract dated April 12,
1995, and received on April 14, 1995.
Since this report is being submitted during the design phase, some changes in the project
could occur after our report is submitted. Therefore, we request the opportunity to
review this report with respect to final design.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on your
project. Should you have any questions, or find we can be of further service, please let us
Distribution:
(2) Above
(2) Mr. Ulys Lane, III, P.E. - Weir & Associates, Inc.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
!'
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description
1.2 Purpose and Scope
2 FlELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Field Exploration
2.2 Laboratory Testing
3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 General
3.2 Stratigraphy
3.2.1 Soil Conditions
3.2.2 Primary Unweathered Woodbine Formation
3.2.3 Hard Rocks
3.3 Groundwater Observations
3.4 Site Geology
4 FOUNDATIONS 4.1 Foundation Type, Depth, and Allowable Loading
4.2 Drilled Shaf~ Construction
5 BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES 5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures
5.2 Wall Drainage
5.3 Backfill Placement and Compaction
5.4 Retaining Wall Footings
6 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 6.1 General
6.2 Sections Selected for Analysis
6.3 Input Parameters
6.4 Results of Stability Analysis
7 CONSTRUCTION SLOPES AND TEMPORARY SHORING 7.1 General
7.2 Excavations and Slopes
7.3 Responsible Person
7.4 Permanent Slopes
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
9
9
9
10
11
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
16
16
ii
~ FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD. DOC/512-95/bg: 4 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
62958-001-001
CONTENTS (CONT'D)
7.5 Groundwater/Dewatering
8 EARTHWORK 8.1 Subgrade Preparation
8.2 Placing of Material
8.3 Moisture and Density Control
8.4 Imported Borrow Material
8.5 Trench/Wall Backfill
8.6 Contamination Testing and Certification
9 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE
9.1 General
9.2 Subgrade Treatment
9.3 Construction Procedures
9.3.1 Application
9.3.2 Mixing
9.3.3 Compaction
10 REPORT CLOSURE
11 LIlVlITATIONS
16
17
17
18
18
20
20
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
24
26
iii
Rev. 0,05/18/95
FW/F2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95~g:4
62958-001-001
TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Table 5-1
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
12
14
14
FW/F2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
Rev. 0, 05/18/95
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This report presents the results of a geotechnical study for the proposed road and bridge
improvements along Denton Tap Road from just south of the existing Denton Creek
bridge to near Highland Drive in Coppell, Texas. The existing two lane road will be
widened to six lanes and a new bridge will be constructed over Denton Creek.
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this geotechnical study has been to determine the general subsurface
conditions, evaluate the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials
encountered, and develop recommendations for the type or types of foundations suitable
for the project. Geotechnical parameters for retaining walls and earthwork are also
provided.
To accomplish its intended purposes, the study has been conducted in the following
phases: (1) drilling sample bofings to determine the general subsurface conditions and to
obtain samples for testing; (2) performing laboratory tests on appropriate samples to
determine pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials; and, (3) performing
engineering analyses, using the field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed construction.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD,DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
] Rev. 0, 05/18/95
2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Field Exploration
Sub surface conditions were explored by 2 borings drilled to a depth of 65 to 71 feet in the
proposed bridge area, and 3 borings drilled to a depth of 10 feet along the proposed road.
The borings were drilled April 28, May 1 and 2, 1995, at the approximate locations shown
on the Plan of Borings in Appendix A, Figure A. 1. The boring logs are also included in
Appendix A, on Figures A. 3 through A. 9, and a key to terms and descriptions on the logs
is provided on Figure A.2.
Borings were located in the field by taped measurement from existing features along the
roadway. Elevations of the borings were interpolated from topographic contour maps of
the area provided to us by Weir & Associates, Inc. (Weir). The location and elevation of
the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used
in their determination.
The boring logs shown in this report contain information related to the types of materials
encountered at specific locations and times and show lines delineating the interface
between these materials. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary
between soil types and the transition can be gradual. Soil and rock descriptions on the
borings logs are a compilation of field data, as well as from laboratory testing of samples.
The logs also contain our field representative's interpretation of conditions that are
believed to exist in those depth intervals between the actual samples taken. Therefore,
these boring logs contain both factual and interpretative information.
Relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive soils encountered in the borings were taken by
rapidly pushing a 3-inch OD thin-walled tube sampler (ASTM D 1587) a distance of
approximately 1 to 2 feet into the soil with hydraulic cylinders from the drill rig. Depths at
which these samples were taken are designated "U" are indicated in the "Sample" column
of the boring logs. After a tube was recovered from a boring, the sample was carefully
extruded in the field, observed visually, and logged. A representative portion was
selected, wrapped, and sealed to prevent loss of moisture and to protect the sample during
transportation. Estimates of the consistency of the cohesive soil samples were obtained in
the field using a hand penetrometer, which is factory calibrated in units of tons per square
foot (tsf). The result of a hand penetrometer reading is recorded at a corresponding depth
in the "Penetrometer, TSF" column of the boring logs. When the capacity of the hand
penetrometer is exceeded, the value of 4.5+ is recorded.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) cone penetrometer test was used to
evaluate the sandy shale and sandstone. Either the number of blows required to produce
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DO C/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
Rev. 0, 05/18/95
12 inches of penetration, or the inches of penetration due to 100 blows of the hammer are
noted on the boring logs designated "T" in the "Penetration Resistance" column.
Disturbed samples were taken by driving a standard ASTM 2-inch OD split-spoon sampler
(ASTM D 1586) a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-1b hammer falling freely a
distance of 30 inches. Where resistance was high, the number of inches of penetration for
50 blows of the hammer was recorded. Depths at which the split-spoon samples were
taken in these borings are designated "S" in the "Sample" column of the boring logs. The
number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of penetration or the
inches of penetration for 50 blows is recorded at a corresponding depth in the "Blows Per
Ft" column of the boring logs. Representative portions of each split-spoon sample were
selected and sealed in plastic bags to prevent loss of moisture.
The sandy shales were also sampled with an NX size double-tube core barrel fitted with a
carbide bit. The amount of core recovered is recorded on the boring logs in the
"Recovery, %" column and is designated "C." All samples were extruded in the field,
visually classified, sealed and packaged for transportation.
Groundwater observations made during the course of the field exploration are included on
the boring logs. Groundwater level measurements refer only to those observed at the
times and places indicated, and can vary with time, geologic condition, construction
activity, rainfall, and other factors.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Representative samples of the soils were tested in the laboratory. Liquid limit and plastic
limit tests (Atterberg limits) (ASTM D 4318) and grain size tests (ASTM D 1140) were
performed on soil samples from the borings in order to classify them according to the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487).
Strength properties of the cohesive soil and shale were evaluated by performing
uncon~ned compression tests (ASTM D 2166). The results of these tests are reported as
Qu values (in tons per square foot). Moisture and density determinations were also made
on samples to determine the in situ conditions.
Results of Atterberg Limits, percent passing no. 200 sieve, moisture content, unit dry
weight, and unconfined compression tests are provided in the right-hand portion of the
respective boring logs and a summary is included in Appendix B.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-0014301
3 Rex,. O, 05/18/95
3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 General
Soil deposits consist of alluvial soils deposited by Demon creek and residual Woodbine
soils. The primary unweathered Woodbine formation is a complex interbedded system of
shale, sand, and sandstone. The sands vary from uncemented soils to cemented "rock-
like" materials. The shales typically grade from sandy and silty to clayey and
carbonaceous.
3.2 Stratigraphy
3.2.1 Soil Conditions
The alluvial and residual soils vary widely in character from fine silty sands to highly
plastic clays. Typically, these soils were encountered within the upper 46 to 47 feet
explored by B-1 and B-2. Liquid limits of 29 to 60 and plasticity index (PI) values of 16
to 38 were obtained on samples of these soils. The unconfined compressive strengths of
the cohesive soils generally varied from less that 1 tsf to over 4 tsf. The sands are often
nonplastic to slightly plastic.
N-values for the sand and gravel, determined from the standard penetration tests, ranged
from about 2 for 12 inches to over 50 indicating a wide range in relative density of very
loose to very dense. Typically, the sand and gravel varies with respect to density.
3.2.2 Primary Unweathered Woodbine Formation
The primary unweathered Woodbine Formation materials consisted of sandy shale, clay
shale, shaly sand, sand, sandstone, siltstone, and limey sandstone. These materials are
generally light gray, gray and dark gray in color, and within some depths are brownish-
gray to black. The shaly materials are typically very stiff to moderately hard in consistency
and the sand/sandstone materials are dense to very dense.
Uncon~ned compressive strength tests performed on the primary unweathered materials
revealed values ranging from approximately 4 to 50 tsf. The wide range in values is
typical of the Woodbine Formation, and reflects the variable nature of materials
themselves, particularly the degree of cementation of the sandy zones, the clay-like texture
of the shale, slickensided fractures, and clay layers. Disturbance during sampling can also
affect the sample test results.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
4 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
The cone penetrometer test generally provides a more realistic indication of the bearing
capacity of the Woodbine materials, as compared to the uncon~ned compression test.
Cone penetrometer values ranging from approximately 1.5 inch to 12 inches of penetration
per 100 blows were recorded. Most values were in the 1.5-inch to 4-inch range.
3.2.3 Hard Rocks
Rock materials were also encountered in the borings for the new bridge. The rocks are
described as limy sandstone, grading to sandy limestone, and are very hard and highly
cemented. Experience with these very hard materials has revealed them to be in the form
of irregular-shaped boulders and/or layers varying in thickness from less than 1 foot to
over 10 feet. Construction of foundations often requires rock-tooth augers, drop
chisels, core barrels, or other rock excavation equipment where the hard rocks are
encountered.
3.3 Groundwater Observations
Groundwater, in the form of a perched condition, exists within the limits of the area
explored. Indications are that the groundwater is perched within the permeable sand and
gravel which lie above the sandy shale and sandstone as well as within sand layers present
in the shale. Water-level measurements are recorded at the bottom of the log.
Fluctuations in the water table are anticipated and are often dependent upon climatic
conditions (rainfall, drought, etc.), the permeability of the sand, cross bedding of sands
and clays, and adjacent grades. The water level at the time of construction could be
higher or lower than the depths recorded to date.
3.4 Site Geology
This site is underlain by the Woodbine geological formation and alluvial soils of the
adjacent creek. Sand, gravel, clays, sandstone, and shales generally compose this
formation. Iron oxides, lignite, gypsum, and py~te are also found throughout the
formation. Dense and irregular shaped masses or hard sandstone occur at random
throughout the formation and are commonly referred to as "boulders." Structurally, the
Woodbine is quite complex in that it contains numerous small faults, lenticular masses, and
consequent divergent dips. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to trace a particular bed
for any distance. Water is found at various levels in the formation, some as perched tables
in sand lenses. The outcrop of the Woodbine Formation is generally marked by sandy
surface soils which support a dense growth of oak trees.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DO C/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
5 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
4
FOUNDATIONS
4.1 Foundation Type, Depth, and Allowable Loading
The bearing materials suitable for support of moderate to heavy column loads include gray
sandy shales, shaly sands, and sandstones encountered approximately 46 to 46.5 feet
below existing grade.
Auger-excavated, reinforced concrete, straight-sided drilled shafts will provide a desirable
means of transmitting structural loads to the beating material. An allowable end-bearing
value of 20,000 pounds per square foot can be used to design the shaft. A skin friction
value of 3,200 pounds per square foot can be used for that portion of the shaft perimeter
in direct contact with the beating material after 1 foot of penetration and below the
temporary steel casing. For pier resistance to pullout, a friction value of 1,600 pounds per
square foot can be used. Regardless of loads, all shafts should penetrate into the bearing
material a minimum of 5 feet.
Beating values should be selected to include a factor of safety of 3 with regard to shear
failure, dead load only. Foundations proportioned in accordance with these values will
experience negligible settlement after construction. The weight of the footings below final
grade may be neglected in determining the design loads. It is anticipated that temporary
steel casing will be required to properly construct the shafts.
The following is a summary of the foundation recommendations:
Foundation type: Straight sided, drilled shafts
Beating stratum: Gray sandy and clayey shale, shaly sand, and sandstone
Bearing stratum encountered approximately: 46 to 47 feet below existing grade
Minimum penetration into bearing stratum: 5 feet
Allowable bearing pressure: 20,000 pounds per square foot (psi)
Allowable skin friction: 3,200 psf (for compression loads)
Resistance to pier pullout: 1,600 psf
Minimum penetration into beating stratum prior to using skin friction: 1.0 foot
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
6 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
Temporary steel casing: Casing is anticipated to be required on all of the shafts.
Reinforcing steel should be placed within the drilled shafts to resist tensile forces caused
by expansion within the surrounding clays. Uplift forces and resulting tension forces will
be exerted on shafts during volume changes in the expansive soils. Uplift pressures are
estimated to be approximately 1,000 pounds per square foot acting over the perimeter of
the drilled shaft for a depth of 12 feet.
4.2 Drilled Shaft Construction
Drilled shaft construction should be monitored by a representative of the project
geotechnical engineer to observe, among other things, the following items:
Identification of bearing material.
Adequate penetration of the shaft excavation into the bearing layer.
The base and sides of the shaft excavation are clean of loose cuttings.
That a sufficient head of plastic concrete is maintained within the casings at
all times during their extraction to prevent the inflow of water.
Precautions should be taken during the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to
prevent loose, excavated soil from falling into the excavation. Concrete should be placed
as soon as practical after completion of the drilling, cleaning and inspection. Excavation
for a drilled shaft should be filled with concrete before the end of the workday, thus
preventing excessive deterioration of the bearing material. Prolonged exposure or
inundation of the bearing surface with water will result in changes in strength and
compressibility characteristics. If delays occur, the drilled shaft excavation should be
slightly deepened and cleaned, in order to provide a fresh bearing surface.
As previously discussed, dense to very dense sands and shaly sands are present within the
primary Woodbine Formation. These predominantly granular layers are suitable beating
materials for drilled shaft foundations. Depending on groundwater conditions, however, it
may be necessary to extend the temporary casing through any sand layers that overlie
shale in order to satisfactorily reduce seepage into the shaft during construction.
The concrete should be placed in a manner to prevent the concrete from striking the
reinforcing cage or the sides of the excavation, which could not only affect the positioning
of the cage but may also result in segregation of the concrete mixture. A bottom
discharge hopper is recommended for this purpose.
A drilling rig of sufficient size and weight will be necessary, since the possibility of
encountering hard rock layers exists. The rig must be capable of drilling and/or coring
7 Rev. O, 05/18/95
FW/F2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
through the hard layers to reach the desired bearing stratum and achieve the required
penetration.
Caution should be exercised during construction to prevent the bearing of a shaft on soft
material within the founding stratum. Should any shaft excavation terminate on a soft
seam or layer within the shale, after the required penetration has been achieved, the shat~
should be deepened until the next layer of firm shale or dense sand has been encountered.
The drilling work could require rock-tooth augers, core barrels, and drop chisels to
achieve the proper depth. See Boring logs and Section 3, Item 3.2.3.
As noted above, it is expected that temporary casing will be required for construction.
Water seepage into the pier shafts may occur even if the shafts are cased. Therefore,
provisions should be made in the project specifications for underwater concrete placement
if more than 4 inches of water is present in the bottom of the pier hole. A closed tremie
should be used for underwater concrete placement and the end should be kept below the
top of the concrete in the pier hole. A nominal shaft diameter of at least 24 inches is
recommended to facilitate concrete placement with a tremie.
8 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
5
BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES
5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures
To reduce lateral earth pressures and to provide a porous drainage media, it is
recommended that the walls be backfilled with granular material. On-site clays have
relatively high plasticity index (PI) values and are expected to undergo seasonal volume
changes and are therefore not recommended for backfill.
Recommended lateral earth pressures for rigid walls with top restraint and flexible walls,
such as retaining walls, are given in Table 5-1, Lateral Earth Pressures, for various types
of backfill. The values given assume a horizontal backfill surface at the top of the wall.
Construction of foundations or on-grade slab loads near below-grade walls will apply an
additional horizontal load to the walls. A uniform horizontal pressure due to surcharge
loads from construction and normal loadings, equal to the applicable earth pressure
coefficient multiplied by the surcharge load, should be included in the wall design.
Surcharge loads farther than the height of the wall back from the top of the below-grade
wall do not need to be considered.
For wails constructed below the design water levels, the higher equivalent fluid pressures,
which account for pressures from water, should be used if a wall drainage system is not
used. If a drainage system is incorporated, the design of walls can use the equivalent fluid
pressures given for drained conditions.
5.2 Wall Drainage
A wall drainage system is recommended to reduce pressure on below-grade walls. The
drainage system should include a vertical granular drain and a perimeter collection system.
The vertical drain should be at least 24 inches wide and extend to within three feet of the
surface. The top three feet of backfill should consist of cohesive fill to limit surface water
infiltration into the wall drain. The granular drainage material should have a gradation
similar to ASTM C 33 Fine Concrete Aggregate. A prefabricated wall drainage mat can
be substituted for the 2 foot of sand wall drain material. If the entire wall backfill consists
of granular backfill, a separate wall drain is not necessary.
The perimeter drain collection system for the vertical drain should consist of slotted or
perforated pipe surrounded with a washed aggregate which is in turn surrounded by
suitable nonwoven geotextile fabric similar to Treyira Sl125 or Quline QS0 or an
equivalent. The pipe should have sufficient strength to support the backfill weight without
FWaI2958/DENT APRD. DOC/512 -95/bg: 4
62958-001-001
9 Rev. O, 05/18/95
crushing. The aggregate should be at least six inches thick over the top and around the
sides of the pipe, and have a gradation similar to ASTM C 33, Size No. 57. The
collection system should be connected to a sump or some other discharge method. Flood
water or other water should not be allowed to backflow into the underdrainage system.
5.3 Backfill Placement and Compaction
Fill behind below-grade walls should be compacted, preferably by hand-operated tampers
or light compaction equipment immediately adjacent to the wall. Heavy rollers should not
be allowed closer than about six feet from the wall since high compactive effort will
increase the lateral earth pressures. Where light compaction equipment and hand-
operated compactors are used, the maximum lift thickness should be 4 inches.
The fill should be compacted in maximum of 4-inch loose lifts to 70 percent relative
density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254). The nonexpansive, select fill material should be
placed in maximum of 8-inch lifts and compacted to a density ranging between 92 and 98
percent of maximum standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) dry density at a moisture content
ranging from 2 percentage points below optimum to 5 percentage points above (-2 to +5)
for the backfill materials. The contractor may have to maintain a more narrow range
(within the maximum allowable) in order to consistently achieve the specified density for
some soils or under some conditions. The moisture content and density of all fill material
should be maintained at the specified range of moisture and density.
Backfill should be placed and compacted in a carefully controlled manner to reduce the
magnitude of potential settlement. Experience has indicated that some settlement of the
well-compacted fill should be anticipated for fills greater than approximately 5 feet thick.
This settlement will result in movement of supported sidewalks or floor slabs placed on
fill, and shear loads on pipes passing through the fill into the structure.
Select fill should consist of a clayey sand or sandy clay and sand mixture with less than
fifty percent passing the No. 200 sieve, a liquid limit less than 35, a PI between 4 and 15,
with at least 85 percent passing the No. 4 sieve.
It is recommended that a relatively impervious soil be placed in the upper layer of the
backfill around the exterior of the structure for the purpose of minimizing the amount of
infiltration of the outside surface water. It is recommended that the uppermost 2 feet of
backfill material consist of a sandy clay or clay with a liquid limit in the range of 35 to 45,
a PI in the range of 20 to 25, and the mount passing the No. 200 sieve greater than fifty
percent. The ground surface should slope away from the structure on a gradient of 11/2
to 3 percent, such that surface water does not pond adjacent to the structure within the
backfill zone. Topsoil and seeding should be accomplished to help prevent drying and
cracking this uppermost layer of soil. The slope should be maintained on a 11/2 to 3
percent gradient after topsoil is placed. The 2-foot layer of cover soil should be
compacted in maximum of 8-inch lifts to a density ranging between 95 and 100 percent of
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/5 12-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
10 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
standard Proctor at a moisture content ranging from optimum to 4 percentage points
above optimum (0 to +4).
If concrete flatwork is placed at final grade, the use of a relatively impervious soil within
the upper 2 feet is not necessary. The flatwork should extend at least 2 feet beyond the
backfill zone. All joints should be filled with a flexible joint sealer. If the flatwork extends
only into a portion of the backfill zone, use of the 2 feet of cover soil should be required
within the remainder of the area.
5.4 Retaining Wall Footings
It is anticipated that continuous footings will be used for the proposed retaining walls
along Denton Tap Road. The footing should be placed a minimum of 3 feet below the
lowest adjacent grade.
An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (PSF) or less (F. S .=3) can
be used to design the footing. The footing should be placed on undisturbed soils or
compacted and tested fill.
FW/F2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
11 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
6
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
6.1 General
UTEXAS3, a slope stability program developed to measure slope stability by the Spencer,
Bishop, Corps of Engineers' modified Swedish, or Lowe and Karafiath's method of slices,
was utilized for the stability analyses of the 2(H): I(V) slope adjacent to the bike/walking
path and the 3(H): 1 (V) slope adjacent to the arterial roadway. Circular failure surfaces
using the Spencer method of slices were used for both computer stability analyses.
6.2 Sections Selected for Analysis
Slope stability analyses using circular failure surfaces were performed on typical cross
sections for 2(H):I(V) slopes adjacent to the bike/walking path and 3(H):I(V) slopes
adjacent to the arterial roadway. Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix C illustrate the cross
sections selected and the critical failure surface calculated by the stability program.
6.3 Input Parameters
The geometry of the cross sections was determined from the drawings associated with the
construction of the arterial roadway. The subgrade characteristics for both sections were
selected based on review of the boring logs from bofings in the vicinity of the sections. A
sandy clay material was modeled in both sections as the subgrade material. Properties of
the subgrade were selected based on review of the boring logs and based on engineering
experience and judgment. The traffic loading on the arterial roadway section was modeled
using a uniform surface pressure of 42 psf and with a seismic coefficient of 0.01. Table 6-
1 summarizes the unit weight and strength parameters utilized for the stability analyses.
6.4 Results of Stability Analysis
The results of the stability analyses indicate that the proposed slopes are stable under the
conditions analyzed. Table 6-2 summarizes the results of the stability analyses and
compares the calculated factor of safety to the recommended minimum factor of safety.
The recommended minimum factors of safety for the conditions analyzed were determined
using recommendations from the Corps of Engineers "Design and Construction of Levees"
manual (EM 1110-2-1913 ). The figures illustrating the sections analyzed and the computer
stability analysis output is attached in Appendix C.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD. DOC/5 12-95Pog:4 ] 3 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
62958-001-001
Table 6-1
Summary of Material Weight and Strength Properties
Moist Unit Cohesion Internal
Material Type Weight (psf) Friction
(degrees)
(lb/ft3)
Sandy Clay Subgrade 125 [ 200 [ 16
Condition Analyzed
Slope Adjacent to
Bike/Walking Path
Slope Adjacent to
Arterial Roadway
Table 6-2
Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Miramum Factor of Recommended Acceptable Factor of
Safety Generated Miramum Factor of Safety
Safety
2.3 1.5 Yes
2.3 1.5 Yes
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4 ]4 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
62958-001-001
7 CONSTRUCTION SLOPES AND TEMPORARY SHORING
7.1 General
The Owner and the Contractor should make themselves aware of and become familiar with
applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA
Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole
responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means,
methods and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing this information
solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided
below be interpreted to mean that EMCON is assuming responsibility for construction site
safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not
be inferred.
7.2 Excavations and Slopes
The Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths
(including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local,
state, or federal safety regulations, e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for
Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations, such regulations are strictly
enforced and, if they are not followed, the Owner, Contractor and/or earthwork and utility
subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties.
The soils to be penetrated by the proposed excavation may vary significantly across the
site. Our soil classifications are based solely on the materials encountered in widely spaced
exploratory bofings. The Contractor should verify that similar conditions exist throughout
the proposed area of excavation. If different subsurface conditions are encountered at the
time of construction, we recommend that we be contacted immediately to evaluate the
conditions encountered.
If any excavation, including a utility trench, is extended to a depth of more than 20 feet, it
will be necessary to have the side slopes designed by a professional engineer registered in
Texas.
As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept a minimum
lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to no less than equal the slope height. The
exposed slope face should be protected against the elements.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
15 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
7.3 Responsible Person
The Contractor's "responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926," should evaluate the
soil exposed in the excavations as part of the Contractor's safety procedures.
The Contractor's "responsible person" should establish a minimum lateral distance from the
crest of the slope for all vehicles and spoil piles. Likewise, the Contractor's "responsible
person" should establish protective measures for exposed slope faces.
Monitoring of temporary slopes, trenches and dewatering during construction should be
undertaken by the contractor to detect early warnings of movement within slopes,
structures, pavements, etc.
7.4 GroundwaterlDewatering
Groundwater could be encountered within the excavations, depending on the depth of
excavation and ground-water level. The decision as to the method for handling ground
water, depends upon such factors as the soil characteristics within the excavation depth,
site hydrogeology, the size and depth of the excavation, method of excavation and side
slopes, the proximity of existing structures, their depth and foundation type and the design
and function of the proposed structure.
Choice of a particular method or a combination of methods for dewatering any given
excavation will require an analysis of the subsurface soil and ground-water conditions, the
requirements of the work and the contractor's experience with dewatering excavations.
Once these facts are known, consideration can be given to the various methods available
for handling ground water and a selection can be made as to a suitable method. A certain
amount of flexibility is important in the dewatering process. Although a geotechnical study
has been made, some unanticipated subsurface conditions could exist.
16 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
8 EARTHWORK
8.1 Subgrade Preparation
Stripping should consist of the removal of all topsoil, roots, vegetation, and rubbish not
removed by the clearing and grubbing operation. The actual stripping depth should be
based on field observations with particular attention given to old drainage areas, uneven
topography, and excessively wet soils. The stripped areas should be observed to determine
if additional excavation is required to remove weak or otherwise objectionable materials
that would adversely affect the fill placement.
The subgrade should be firm and able to support the construction equipment without
displacement. Sof~ or yielding subgrade should be corrected and made stable before
construction proceeds. The subgrade should be proof rolled to detect soR spots, which if
they exist, should be reworked. Proof rolling should be performed using a heavy
pneumatic-tired roller, loaded dump truck, or similar equipment weighing approximately 25
tons. The proof rolling operations should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer
or his representative.
Existing slopes which will receive fill should be loosened by scarifying or plowing to a
depth of not less than 6 inches. The fill material should be benched into the existing slope
in such a manner as to provide adequate bonding between the fill and slope, as well as to
allow the fill to be placed in horizontal lit~s.
Prior to placement of compacted fill in any section of the embankment, at~er depressions
and holes have been filled, the foundation of such sections should be compacted to the
same density and moisture requirement as the embankment.
In areas of the subgrade which, in the opinion of the project geotechnical engineer, are too
sot~, wet or otherwise unstable to allow fill construction to begin, the use of plating and/or
plating in combination with a geogrid may be required. Providing detailed
recommendations for plating and/or use of geogrids for this project is beyond the scope of
our work for this project.
The traffic of heavy equipment, including heavy compaction equipment, may create
pumping and general deterioration of the soil. Occasionally, some soils have to be
excavated, mixed and dried, and replaced. At times, excavating and replacing with selected
soils and/or chemically treating in-place materials is required before an adequate subgrade
can be achieved. Therefore, it should be anticipated that some construction difficulties will
be encountered during periods when these soils are saturated.
17 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
8.2 Placing of Material
Fill materials should be placed on a properly prepared subgrade as specified. The combined
excavation, placing, and spreading operation should be done in such a manner to obtain
blending of material, and to provide that the materials, when compacted in the
embankment, will have the most practicable degree of compaction and stability. Materials
excavated from cut sections and/or borrow sources and hauled to construct fills must be
mixed and not segregated, except where such segregated soil zones are required. All fill
should be placed in horizontal lifts. Filling along (parallel to) slopes should not be
permitted. In areas where slopes will be constructed using fill, the fill should extend
beyond finished contours and cut back to grade.
If the surface of the fill is too smooth and hard to bond properly with a succeeding layer,
the surface should be roughened and loosened by discing before the succeeding layer is
placed.
Where fill is to be placed next to existing fill, that fill should be removed to unweathered,
dense material. Each layer should be benched and disced as adjoining lifts are placed.
Material hauling equipment should be so routed over the embankment surface to distribute
the added compaction afforded by the rolling equipment, and to prevent the formation of
ruts on the embankment surface.
The surface of the fill should be graded to drain freely and maintained throughout
construction. During the dumping and spreading process, the contractor should maintain at
all times a force of men adequate to remove all roots and debris and all rocks greater than 4
inches in maximum dimension from the fill materials. No rocks should be allowed within
the final 8 inches of subgrade.
8.3 Moisture and Density Control
Following the spreading and mixing of the soil on the embankment, it should be processed
by discing throughout its thickness to break up and provide additional blending of
materials. Discing should consist of at least two passes of the disc plow. Additional passes
of the disc plow should be made necessary to accomplish breaking up and blending the fill.
The recommended loose lift thickness is 8 inches. The moisture content of the soil should
be adjusted, if necessary, by either aeration or the addition of water to bring the moisture
content within the specified range. Water required for sprinkling to bring the fill material to
the proper moisture content should be applied evenly through each layer.
Any layers which become damaged by weather conditions should be reprocessed to meet
specification requirements. The compacted surface of a layer of fill should be lightly
loosened by discing before the succeeding layer is placed.
When the moisture content and the condition of the fill layer are satisfactory, compaction
should be made with a tamping-foot roller (sheepsfoot with cleaner teeth) either towed by a
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-.001
1 R Rev. 0, 05/18/95
crawler-type tractor or the self-propelled type. The tamping-foot length should be a
minimum of 8 inches. Vibratory tamping rollers may be required for compacting some
types of fill material.
The fill material should be compacted to a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by the moisture-density relations test method ASTM
Designation D 698. The moisture content should range between 2 percentage points below
optimum to 5 percentage points above optimum (-2 to +5) for soils with a plasticity index
(PI) of less than 20. For soils with a PI of 20 or greater, the moisture content should range
between optimum and 5 percentage points above optimum (0 to +5). The moisture content
ranges specified are to be considered as maximum allowable ranges. The contractor may
have to maintain a more narrow range (within the maximum allowable) in order to
consistently achieve the specified density for some soils or under some conditions. The
moisture content and density of all fill material should be maintained at the specified range
of moisture and density.
Fill behind below-grade walls should be compacted with hand-operated tampers or light
compaction equipment immediately adjacent to the wall. A loose lift thickness of four to
six inches is typically required for hand-operated tampers. Backfill on structures receiving
fill on both sides should be kept within two feet of the opposite side. Refer to Section 5.3
for further discussion.
Field density tests should be taken as each lift of fill material is placed. One field density
test per lift for each 5,000 square feet of compacted area is recommended. A minimum of
2 tests per lift should be required. The earthwork operations should be observed and tested
on a continuing basis by an experienced geotechnician working in conjunction with the
project geotechnical engineer. The contractor should assist the geotechnician in taking
tests to the extent of furnishing labor and equipment to prepare the areas for testing and
curtailing operations in the vicinity of the test area during testing.
Each lift should be compacted, tested, and approved before another lift is added. The
purpose of the field density tests is to provide some indication that uniform and adequate
compaction is being obtained. The actual quality of the fill, as compacted, should be the
sole responsibility of the contractor and satisfactory results from the tests should not be
considered as a guarantee of the quality of the contractor's filling operations.
All slopes, whether temporary construction slopes or permanent embankment should be
designed to allow drainage at planned areas where erosion protection can be provided,
instead of allowing surface water to flow down unprotected slopes. Vegatative ground
cover should be provided as soon as practical to completed slopes.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
]9 Rev. O, 05/18/95
8.4 Imported Borrow Material
Imported fill materials, used along the roadway, should consist of soil with a liquid limit
(LL) less than 45 and a plasticity index (PI) less than 25. The fill should be free of
vegetation, roots, debris, rocks, or other objectionable material. Prior to delivery of off-
site soils, the owner or engineer should be notified. The requirements provided in Item 8.6
should be followed.
8.5 Trench/Wall Backfill
Trench backfill for utilities should be properly placed and compacted. Dense or dry backfill
can swell and create a mound along the ditch line. Loose or wet backfill can settle and
form a depression along the ditch line. Distress to overlying structures, pavements, side
walks, etc. can occur if heaving or settling happens. A granular bedding material is
recommended for pipe bedding. Clean coarse sand, well- rounded pea gravel, or well
graded crushed rock make good bedding materials. Care should be taken to prevent the
backfilled trench from becoming a french drain and piping surface or subsurface water
beneath structures or pavements. The use of concrete cut-off collars or clay plugs may be
required to prevent this from occurring.
The following minimum test frequency will be used; however, the test frequency should
comply with project specifications if more frequent tests are specified.
Vertical Interval:
12-inch lifts or alternate 6-inch lifts, depending on construction equipment and soil
Horizontal Spacing:
Wall Backfill - 100 feet
Utility Trench Backfill under Pavement and Embankments - 250 feet
Minimum - 3 tests per section per 12-inch interval
Test locations should be staggered horizontally 20 to 50 feet (depending on trench length)
for succeeding intervals so that tests do not fall over previous tests. Additionally, for
trench widths greater than 2 feet, stagger the tests for each interval off center line.
Moisture/Density Requirements:
Trench Types
Compaction
(% of Standard Proctor)
Moisture Content
(% Points from Optimum)
Wall 92 - 98 -2 to +5
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4 20 Rgv. 0, 05/18/95
62958-O01-001
Utility
(Under Pavements and Embankments)
Plasticity Index 0 - 20
Plasticity Index >20
95 -2 to +5
95 0 to 4
8.6 Contamination Testing and Certification
The Contractor should be required to arrange and pay for the services of a laboratory
preapproved by the Owner to collect samples and perform a toxic contaminant scan of
composite soil samples representative of each separate off-site borrow source in
accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protocol for Total
Metals (eight metals, EPA Method 3010/6010), pH (EPA Method 150.1), Chlorides (EPA
Method 330.4), Volatile Organics (EPA Method 8240), and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (EPA Method 418.1 ).
Copies of the results of the laboratory tests should be submitted with chains-of-custody to
the Owner by the Contractor prior to proceeding to furnish soil materials to the site. Any
potential off-site soil borrow on which scan test results indicate the presence of
contaminants above background levels will be rejected as an off-site soil borrow source.
The laboratory performing the scan test for contaminants for the Contractor should provide
a written certification along with the test which states that the laboratory is EPA approved,
that the tests were performed according to EPA guidelines, and that the samples were
collected using EPA protocol.
The Contractor should obtain a written, notarized certification from the landowner of each
proposed off-site soil borrow source stating that to the best of the landowner's knowledge
and belief there has never been contamination of the borrow source site with hazardous or
toxic materials. These certifications should be submitted to the Owner by the Contractor
prior to proceeding to furnish soil materials to the site. The lack of such certification on a
potential off-site soil borrow source will be cause for rejection of that source. Soil
materials derived from the excavation of underground petroleum storage tanks shall not be
used as fill on this project.
2 1 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
9 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE
9.1 General
Based on the soil borings, the subgrade soils are anticipated to be clay along the roadway.
These soils have poor subgrade characteristics and can become sof~ and pump with an
increase in moisture content. A commonly used method to improve the strength properties
of the soils is to treat them with hydrated lime.
Laboratory testing of the anticipated future subgrade soils consisted of Atterberg limits
tests and percent passing No. 200 sieve. In addition, a series of liquid and plastic limit tests
were conducted on the natural subgrade soils in order to determine optimum lime additive
contents for the purpose of soil treatment below paving. In these tests, soil plasticity index
was evaluated as a function of the percentage of dry soil weight. The pH of soil/lime
mixtures was also determined. These test results are included in Appendix B.
9.2 Subgrade Treatment
,~_
An application rate of 27 pounds of hydrated lime per square yard of surface area for the 6-
inch subgrade thickness is recommended. This complies with the City's standard
requirements. The plasticity index of the lime/soil mixture should be 3-.5'or less. The
estimated application rate is based on a soil unit dry weight of 125 pcf and 6 percent lime.
The lime treated subgrade should extend a minimum of 12 inches outside the curb line.
This will improve the support for the edge of the pavement and also lessen the "edge
effect" associated with shrinkage during dry periods.
9.3 Construction Procedures
Construction of the lime treated subgrade should follow Item 260 of TxDOT's most
current Standard Specifications. The recommended gradation requirement at~er final
mixing includes 100 percent passing the 1-3/4" sieve and 60 percent passing the No. 4
sieve.
9.3.1 Application
The hydrated lime should be applied only to the area where the mixing operations can be
completed during the same working day. The hydrated lime should be placed by the slurry
method and be mixed with water in trucks or in tanks and applied as a thin water
suspension or slurry. The distributor truck or tank should be equipped with an agitator
FW /I/2958/DENTAPRD. DOC/512-95/bg: 4 22 R~v. O, 05/18/95
62958-001-001
which will keep the lime and water in a uniform mixture. The distribution of lime at the
rates indicated shall be attained by successive passes over a measured section of roadway
until the proper lime content has been secured.
The amount of lime to be added per area of stabilization can be determined by calculating
the square yardage to be stabilized and then multiplying by the prescribed application rate.
Lime delivery tickets should be submitted to the engineer to verify the amount of lime
applied. The interval of time between application and mixing that the hydrated lime is
exposed to the atmosphere, should be a maximum of 6 hours.
9.3.2 Mixing
The material should be uniformly mixed with a rotary mixer capable of reducing the size of
the particles so that when all non-slaking aggregates retained on the 3/4" sieve are
removed, the remainder of the material shall meet the following requirements when tested
dry by laboratory sieves:
Minimum passing 1-3/4" sieve - 100%
Minimum passing No. 4 sieve - 60%
Gradation tests should be performed for each 500 linear feet of roadway, with a minimum
of one test per section of lime placement. A check for correct depth of stabilization should
also be made.
9.3.3 Compaction
Compaction of the mixture shall begin immediately axler mixing. The material should be
aerated or sprinkled as necessary to provide the optimum moisture. Compaction shall
begin at the bottom and continue until the entire depth of mixture is uniformly compacted.
All irregularities, depressions, or weak spots which develop must be corrected immediately
by scarifying the areas affected, adding or removing material, and reshaping and
recompacting by sprinkling and rolling. The surface should be maintained in a smooth
condition, flee from undulations and ruts.
The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of Standard Proctor
(ASTM D 698) density, at a moisture content ranging from optimum to four percentage
points above optimum (0 to +4). After the required compaction is reached, the subgrade
should be brought to the required lines and grades and finished by rolling with a pneumatic
tire or other suitable roller sufficiently light to prevent hairline cracking.
The compacted section should be moist-cured for approximately 7 days. Field density tests
should be taken at the rate of one (1) test per each 500 linear feet of roadway with a
minimum of two (2) per lime placement.
23 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
10
REPORT CLOSURE
The borings made for this report were located in the field by taped measurement from the
existing roadway. Elevations of the bofings were interpolated from topographic contour
maps of the area provided to us by Weir & Associates, Inc. The locations and elevations of
the bofings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used
in their determination. The boring logs shown in this report contain information related to
the types of soil encountered at specific locations and times and show lines delineating the
interface between these materials. The logs also contain our field representative's
interpretation of conditions that are believed to exist in those depth intervals between the
actual samples taken. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive
information. It is not warranted that these logs are representative of subsurface conditions
at other locations and times.
With regard to groundwater conditions, this report presents data on groundwater levels as
they were observed during the course of the field work. In particular, water level readings
have been made in the borings at the times and under conditions stated in the text of the
report and on the boring logs. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the
groundwater table can occur with passage of time due to variations in rainfall, temperature
and other factors. Also, this report does not include quantitative information on rates of
flow of groundwater into excavations, on pumping capacities necessary to dewater the
excavations, or on methods of dewatering excavations. Unanticipated soil conditions at a
construction site are commonly encountered and cannot be fully predicted by mere soil
samples, test borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that
additional expenditures be made by the owner to attain a prope~y designed and constructed
project. Therefore, provision for some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate
such potential extra cost.
The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed at the time of our field investigation and further on the
assumption that the exploratory bofings are representative of the subsurface conditions
throughout the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly
different from those disclosed by the borings at the time they were completed. If, during
construction, different sub surface conditions from those encountered in our bofings are
observed, or appear to be present beneath excavations, we must be advised promptly so
that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.
If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of the
work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to construction
operations at or adjacent to the site, or if building locations, structural loads or finish
grades are changed, we urge that we be promptly informed and retained to review our
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
24 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering
the changed conditions and/or time lapse.
The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for
the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface
water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this report or
on the soil boring logs regarding odors noted or unusual or suspicious items or conditions
observed are strictly for the information of our client.
This report has been prepared for use in developing an overall design concept. Paragraphs,
statements, test results, boring logs, diagrams, etc., should not be taken out of context, nor
utilized without a knowledge and awareness of their intent within the overall concept of
this report. The reproduction of this report, or any part thereof, supplied to persons other
than the owner, should indicate that this study was made for foundation design purposes
only and that verification of the subsurface conditions for purposes of determining difficulty
of excavation, trafficability, etc., are responsibilities of the contractor.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Coppell and its
designated consultants for specific application to design of this project. The only warranty
made by us in connection with the services provided is that we have used that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our
profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty, express or implied,
is made or intended.
25 Rev. 0, 05/18/95
FWaJ2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-001-001
11 LIMITATIONS
The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is
made. These services were performed consistent with our agreement with our client. This
report is solely for the use and information of our client unless otherwise noted. Any
reliance on this report by a third party is at such party's sole risk.
Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when
services were performed and are intended only for the client, purposes, locations, time
frames, and project parameters indicated. We do not warrant the accuracy of information
supplied by others, nor the use of segregated portions of this report.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are invalid if
· The assumed design loads change
· The structures are relocated
· The report is used for adjacent or other property or buildings
· Grades, groundwater levels, or both, change between the issuance of this
construction
· Any other change is implemented that materially alters the project from that hen this
report was prepared
The boring logs do not provide a warranty of the conditions that may exist at the entire
site. The extent and nature of sub surface soil and groundwater variations may not become
evident until construction begins. Variations in soil conditions between borings could
possibly exist between or beyond the points of exploration or groundwater elevations may
change, both of which may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design
revisions. Any person associated with this project who observes conditions or features of
the site or surrounding areas that are different from those described in this report should
report them immediately to us for consideration and evaluation.
This report was prepared solely for the use of our client and should be reviewed in its
entirety.
FW/I/2958/DENTAPRD.DOC/512-95/bg:4
62958-0014)01
26 aev. o, 05/18/95
APPENDIX A
/
I
· ,:tk;~:
\t~ 4'- .
. /xs~
x
0
n,'
o_
bJ
n.-
r,/")
z
0
0
0
0
Z
GENERAL NOTES
8OIL OR ROCK TYFE,3 fshown in symbols column)
Clay Lean Sandy Silty Clayey Sand Gravelly Clayey Gravel
Clay Clay Sand Sand Sand Gravel
Sandy Conglom- Weathered Shale Sandstone Limestone Solid Waste Igneous Volcanic
Gravel erar~ Shale or Debris *
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
U: Thin-walled Tube - 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted
S : Split Barrel Sampler - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted
Example: 25 = 25 blows/12" after 6" seating interval; 50/7 = 50 blows/7"
ai~er 6" seating interval; REF = 50 blows
C : Double Tube Core Barrel
T : THD Cone Penetrometer
Example: T60 = 60 blows/12"; T4.5" = 100 blows/4.5"
rosy be used in combine-
'.ion ,,eit. h ~he. types
A : Auger Sample
W : Wash Sample
P : Packer Te~
D : Denison Sample
Rk'X-~,TIVE DENb"rI~ OF COARSEGRAINED SOlL~:
CONSISTENCY OFFINE-GRAINEDSOILS:
Penetration Resistance Relative Unconfined Compressire
Blows/foot Density Stren2th, Qu, tsf Consistency
0 - 4 Very loose Loss than 0.25 Very soft
4 - 10 Loose 0.25 to 0.50 Soe~
10 - 30 Medium dense 0.50 to 1.00 Firm
30 - 50 Dense 1.00 to 2.00 Stiff
over 50 Very dense 2.00 to 4.00 Very stiff
4.00 and higher Hard
Slickensided
Fiseured
Laminated
Interbedded
Calcareous
Well graded
Poorly graded
Having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance.
Containing shrinkage cracks, frequently filled with fine sand or silt; usually more or less vertical.
Composed of thin layers of varying color and texture.
Composed of alternate layers of different soil types.
Containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate.
Having wide range in grain sizes and substantial mounts of all intermediate particle sizes.
Predominantly of one grain size, or having a range of sizes with some intermediate size missing.
DECtREE OF WEA~EIERING.-
Unweathered
Slightly weathered
Weathered
Severely weathered
Reck in its natural state before being exposed to atmospheric agents.
Noted predominantly by color change with no disintegrated zones·
Complete color change with zones of slightly decomposed rock.
Complete color change with consistency, texture, and general appearance approaching soil.
CUBSURFACE CONDITIONS:
Soil and rock descri~ions on the boring logs are a compilation of field data as well as from laboratory testing of samples on those
strata for which laboratory classification test results are presented on the boring logs. These classifications are based only on
the actual samples tested, and the clnssification is then assigned to the remainder of the stratum interval based on visual
classification. If laboratory classification test resuJts are not presented on the boring log for a particular stratum, then that
stratum was classified by visual-manual procedures only. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between
materials and the transition can be gradual.
Classification of soils based upon visual-manual procedures was performed in general accordance with ASTIVI Standard D 2488.
Classification of soils based upon laboratory tes~ results was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 2487.
Water-level observations have been made in the borings at the times indicated. It must be noted that fluctuations in the ground-
water level may occur due to variations in rainfall, hydraulic conductivity of soil strata, construction activity, and other factors.
FIGURE A.2
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 1
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppell, Texas
-20 ·
u-1
Surface El.' + 460.3' MSL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY CLAY, dark brown to brown, stiff
w/calcareous nodules
U-3
U4
U-7
3.0
3.0
3.5
SANDY CLAY (CL), light brown to
brown, firm, moist w/calcareous nodules &
small gravel
12.5
1.5
2.0
CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown to tan,
loose, wet w/occasional layers of gray
calcareous clay & w/fine to medium
rounded gravel
21.0
18.3
19.5 II1.1 42 15 27 79 4.1
17.0
0.5 18.3
17.2 102.5
0.4
39
U-8
-35 '
7,
/.
s-9/,
-40
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Engineer/Geologist:
t- Pro iect No.:
EMCON
71.0 ft.
4128195
5/1/95
T. Baker
62958.4101-001
1 23.5
Remarks: Seepage encountered @ 20.5 ft. during drilling. Water level measured
@ 14.5 ft. & hole caved @ 23.4 ft. on 5-2-95.
The stratification lines reprcsent ,npproximatc strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be gr uiil.
Continued Next Page
FIGURE A.3
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 1
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD ~ Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppen, Texas
Location: d
Surface El.: + 460.3' MSL ~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION :Z
- dense below 43 ft.
LIMY SANDSTONE to SANDY
LIMESTONE, very hard, light gray
SANDSTONE, poorly to moderately
cemented, gray, dense w/shale seams
SANDY SHALE, dark gray, moderately
hard w/interbedded sandstone seams &
layers
SHALE, sandy & clayey, dark gray,
moderately hard
49.5
56.5
46
50/1/4
T1.75
TI .25
100
100
13.1
13.7 149.1
52.3
-70-
71.0
T12
-80
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Engineer/Geologist:
t, Project No.:
EMCON
71.0 ft.
4128195
5/1/95
T. Baker
62958-001-001
Remarks: Seepage encountered @ 20.5 ~. during drilling. Water level measured
@ 14.5 ft. & hole caved @ 23.4 ft. on 5-2-95.
The stratification lines represent .approximat~ strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be gradi~l.
HGURE A.4
LOG OF BORING NO. B-
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppert, Texas
Location: a
Surface El.' 4- 461.3' MSL ~ ~ ~ ~
MATERIAL DES~ION ~
u-I
u-2
u-3
-15
-~-7
-2s
3 5 Z~9 ~
CLAY (CL), brown, very stiff w/gravel
4.5+
] 3.5 0.5
CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown, loog ,,L' '.
w/fine gravel
CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown & gray,
loOSe, Wet
CLAYEY SAND/SAND (5P-SC), brown,
tan & gray, wet, medium dense w/gravel
layers
CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark gray & brown,
medium dents, wet w/sand & gravel seams
GRAVEL (GP) w/sand, tan & brown,
medium dense, wet w/tan sand layers
65.0 ft.
5/2195
5/2195
T. Baker
62958-001-001
-40
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Engineer/Geologist:
~. Project No.:
EMCON
13.0
16.5
14.3
23.8
7
20.4
32.0
10
29
36.0
13
Remarks: Seepage encountered @ 13 ft. during drilling.
The stratification lines represent .approximate strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be gradhid.
69
Continued Next Page
HGURE A.5
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 2
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
CoOpell, Texas
Location: ,:
Surface El.: :k 461.3' MSL ~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION l~l
.....
......
_ _S-11 .....
.....
-45--:::::
_ _~"f'~:',:::
.....
-50 C-13 :;:;
....
....
.....
.....
....
....
....
-55~iiii
....
....
....
....
_ __
_ __
_ __
-60 c-15
_ __
_ __
_ __
_ __
GRAVEL (GP) w/sand, tan & brown,
medium dense, wet w/tan sand layers
SAND (SP), gray & tan, dense, wet w/some
gravel
42.0
59/4-1/2'
SANDSTONE, poorly to moderately
cemented, gray, dense w/dark gray shale
seams & layers & some limy sandstone
LIMY SANDSTONE, well cemented, light
gray, very hard
SANDSTONE, moderately to well
cemented, gray, dense, w/shale seams
SHALE, dark gray to brownish gray,
moderately hard to hard w/some silty sand
partings
50.0
52.0
57.5
Ti .5
TI .75
82 15.5 131.6
95
65.0
TI .5
-65
17.3 116.7
16.7 110.2
0.9
3.8
7.0
-75-
-80
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Dat~ Boring Completed:
Engineer/Geologist:
t, Proiect No.:
EMCON
65.0 ft.
5/2/95
5/2/95
T. Baker
62958-001-001
Remarks: Sccpagc encountered @ 13 R. during drilling.
The stratification lines represent .approximate strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be gradual.
FIGURE A.6
-5
-10
-15-
-20-
-25 -
-30-
-35 -
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 3
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppell, Texas
Location: c
~ Surface El.: · 459.0' MSL ~ ~= ~ ~
~
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY CLAY w/lime (CL), brown (FILL)
SANDY CLAY (CL), dark brown, firm to
stiff w/scattered fine gravel
2.0
2.0
4.0
10.0
~ ·
29 12 17
8.5
1.5 17.0 111.3 45 13 32 59
23.2 105.6
1.7
-40
Completion Depth: 10.0 it.
Date Boring Started: 4/28/95
Date Boring Completed: 4/28/95
Engineer/Geologist: T. Baker
Proiect No.: 62958-001-001
EMCON
Remarks: Dry @ completion.
The stratification lines represent .approximate strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be gr ukl.
FIGURE A.7
'T .....................T ...........................r
-5
- 10
-15-
-20-
-25 -
-30-
-35 -
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 4
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppell, Texas
Location: c
~ Surface El.: + 460.0' MSL ~
U-2
U-3
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANDY CLAY (CL), dark brown, stiff
CLAY (CH), dark brown, firm to stiff
2.0
2.0
7.0
SANDY CLAY (CL), tan & brown, stiff '~ ~ , L ,.;/~
! ~ 3.5
10.0
,.7 o
= r. z-~
13.9 115.4 29 13 16 49
1.5 15.0
14.9
-40
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Engine~r/Ge, ologist:
Project No.:
EMCON
10.0 ft.
4/28/95
4/28/95
T. Baker
62958-001-001
Remarks: Dry @ completion.
The stratification lines r~pres~nt _approximate strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be graduhl.
HGURE A.8
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 5
Project Description: DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppell, Texas
Location:
~ Surface El.: ~- 474.0, MSL
~~ DES~ION
O-I ~ C~Y (CL-CH), d~k brow, ~iff ~ . ,. ~ . .(. 3.5
-5
3.5
CLAY (CH), brown, stiff
7.5
2.0
10.0
20.7 112.2 47 18 29 68 4.5
26.1
60 22 38
20.8
-15-
-20-
-25 -
-30-
-35 -
-40
Completion Depth:
Date Boring Started:
Date Boring Completed:
Engineer/Geologist:
Proiect No.:
EMCON
10.0 ft.
4/28/95
4/28/95
T. Baker
62958-001-001
Remarks: Dry @ completion.
The stratification lines represent .approximate strata boundaries.
In situ, the transition may be gr ifil.
HGURE A.9
APPENDIX B
· ·
Boring/ Percent Finer Unconflned
Exploration Sample Liquid Plastic Plasticity Moisture Unit Dry Percent Percent Compressive
Point Depth Limit Limit Index Content Weight Passing Passing Strength
No. (~) CLL) (PL) (PI) (%) (pcf) #200 #40 (tsf}
B-I
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-I
B-I
B-I
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-2
B-3
B-3
3.0
8.0 42
13.0
18.0
23.0
28.0
38.0
43.0
62.0
0.5
8.0
18.0
28.0
50.0
61.7
63.0
0.5 29
3.0 45
15
12
13
27
17
32
B- 3 8.0
B- 4 0.5 29 13 16
B- 4 3.0
B-4 _. 8:0
B- 5 0.5 47 18 29
B- 5 3.0 60 22 38
B- 5 8.0
18
19
17
17
18
24
13
14
13
14
24
20
16
17
17
9
17
14
15
15
21
26
21
111.1
102.5
149. l
131.6
116.7
110.2
111.3
105.6
115.4
112.2
79
39
69
59
68
4.1
0.4
52.3
0.9
3.8
7.0
!.7
4.5
· EMCON · ,
Summary of Material Properties
DENTON TAP ROAD - Denton Creek to Highland Drive
Coppell, Texas
May 16, 1995 Sheet 1 of 1
HGURE
B.1
PROJECT NO.
· ,62958-001-001,
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
pH Lime Series
Liquid, Plastic Limit and pH Determinations
Project:
Project No.:
Description:
Date Tested:
Denton Tap Road
62958-001-001
Clay, brown,sandy Sample: B-3 @ 3.5'
5/12/95
Hydrated Lime Liquid Plastic Plasticity pH
Added, % Limit, % Limit, % Index Reading
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
45 13 32 7.29
40 34 6
42 38 4
12.04
12.31
12.47
30 -
m 20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PERCENT LIME
_._ Liquid Limit._ Plastic Index._ pH Reading
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
EMCON
FIGURE B. 2
APPENDIX C
2:-,I
o~ wIJJ
_~o
z"' ml--
zo ~Z
r~ will
0
:;)'10 ~ ~ 60:1,1. :ewLL ~e//I./~ :rio(3 H~' I. :elDoS
UTEXAS3 - VER. 1.204 - 10/22/93 - (C) 1985-1993 S. G. WRIGHT
1 Copy Licensed to EMCON Baker-Shiflett, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
Date: 5:12:1995 Time: 9:46:36 Input file: COPPELL1.DAT
TABLE NO. 1
******************~,~***************~*****
* COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGNATION - UTEXAS3 *
* Originally Coded By Stephen G. Wright *
* version No. 1.204 *
* Last Revision Date 10/22/93 *
* (C) Copyright 1985-1993 S. G. Wright *
* All Rights Reserved *
* RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS COMPUTER *
* PROGRAM SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY *
* HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT ANALYSES, EXPERIMENTAL *
* DATA OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE *
* ALGORITHMS AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THE COMPUTER *
* PROGRAM AND MUST HAVE READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS *
* PROGRAM BEFORE ATTEMPTING ITS USE. *
* NEITHER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT *
* MAKE OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY W~RRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR *
* IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS *
* OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM. *
TABLE NO. 2
***************~*****~***
* NEW PROFILE LINE DATA *
~****************~***~***
PROFILE LINE 1 - MATERIAL TYPE = 1
GROUND SURFACE
Point X Y
1 .000 468.000
2 16.000 468.000
3 32.000 460.000
4 48.000 460.000
All new profile lines defined - No old lines retained
TABLE NO. 3
~*******~*****~**~*****************~************~**********~****~****
* NEW MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA - CONVENTIONAL/FIRST-STAGE COMPUTATIONS *
,~,~****************~,~,~,~************************~***************~*~
DATA FOR MATERIAL TYPE 1
SUBGRADE LAYER
Unit weight of material = 125.000
CONVENTIONAL (ISOTROPIC) SHEAR STRENGTHS
Cohesion 200.000
Friction angle 16.000 degrees
No (or zero) pore water pressures
All new material properties defined - No old data retained
TABLE NO. 15
* NEW ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION DATA *
Circular Shear Surface(s)
Automatic Search Performed
Starting Center Coordinate for Search at -
X=
y=
Required accuracy for critical center (= minimum
spacing between grid points) = 1.000
Critical shear surface not allowed to pass below Y =
For the initial mode of search
all circles pass through the point at -
Short form of output will be used for search
50.000
480.000
X = 32.000
Y = 460.000
.000
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENT EITHER DEFAULT OR PREVIOUSLY DEFINED VALUES:
Initial trial estimate for the factor of safety = 3.000
Initial trial estimate for side force inclination = 15.000 degrees
(Applicable to Spencer's procedure only)
Maximum number of iterations allowed for
calculating the factor of safety = 40
Allowed force imbalance for convergence = 100.000
Allowed moment imbalance for convergence = 100.000
Initial trial values for factor of safety (and side force inclination
for Spencer's procedure) will be kept constant during search
Maximum subtended angle to be used for subdivision of the
circle into slices = 3.00 degrees
Depth of crack = .000
Search will be continued to locate a more critical shear
surface (if one exists) after the initial mode is complete
Depth of water in crack = .000
Unit weight of water in crack = 62.400
Seismic coefficient = .000
Conventional (single-stage) computations to be performed
Procedure used to compute the factor of safety: SPENCER
TABLE NO. 16
* NEW SLOPE GEOMETRY DATA *
NOTE - NO DATA WERE INPUT, SLOPE GEOMETRY DATA
WERE GENERATED BY THE PROGRAM
Slope Coordinates -
Point X Y
1 .000 468.000
2 16.000 468.000
3 32.000 460.000
4 48.000 460.000
TABLE NO. 21
***** 1-STAGE FINAL CRITICAL CIRCLE INFORMATION
X Coordinate of Center 26.000
Y Coordinate of Center 475.000
Radius 16.155
Factor of Safety 2.322
Side Force Inclination -13.58
Number of circles tried
No. of circles F calc. for
76
46
TABLE NO.
38
* Final Results for Stresses Along the Shear Surface *
* (Results for Critical Shear Surface in Case of a Search.) *
***************************************************************
SPENCER'S PROCEDURE USED TO COMPUTE FACTOR OF SAFETY
Factor of Safety = 2.322 Side Force Inclination = -13.58 Degrees
VALUES AT CENTER OF BASE OF SLICE
Total Effective
Slice Normal Normal Shear
No. X-center Y-center Stress Stress Stress
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
11.6
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.6
15.2
15.8
16.3
17.0
17.7
18.5
19.2
20.0
20.8
21.6
22.4
23.3
24.1
24.9
25 7
26 4
27 3
28 1
28 9
29 8
30.6
31.4
31.9
467.6
466.9
466.2
465.5
464.8
464.2
463.5
463.0
462.5
462.1
461.6
461.1
460.7
460.3
460.0
459.7
459.5
459.2
459.1
459.0
458.9
458.9
458.9
458.9
459.0
459.1
459.3
459.5
459.8
460.0
-59.4
7.8
77.7
149.5
222.4
295.8
369.1
441.9
503.0
545.6
578.8
606.9
629.9
647.4
659.2
665.1
664.8
658.3
645.3
625.6
599.1
570 5
535 8
489 6
435 8
374 2
304 6
226 5
139.5
80.2
-59.4 78.8
7.8 87.1
77.7 95.7
149.5 104.6
222.4 113.6
295.8 122.7
369.1 131.7
441.9 140.7
503.0 148.3
545.6 153.5
578.8 157.6
606.9 161.1
629.9 163.9
647.4 166.1
659.2 167.5
665.1 168.3
664.8 168.2
658.3 167.4
645.3 165.8
625.6 163.4
599.1 160.1
570.5 156.6
535.8 152.3
489.6 146.6
435.8 140.0
374.2 132.4
304.6 123.8
226.5 114.1
139.5 103.4
80.2 96.0
CHECK SUMS - (ALL SHOULD BE SMALL)
SUM OF FORCES IN VERTICAL DIRECTION
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF FORCES IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF MOMENTS ABOUT COORDINATE ORIGIN
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SHEAR STRENGTH/SHEAR FORCE CHECK-SUM
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
.00 (=
.00 (=
.92 (=
.00 (=
.247E-03)
.403E-03)
.916E+00)
.116E-03)
***** CAUTION ***** EFFECTIVE OR TOTAL NORMAL STRESS ON SHEAR
SURFACE IS NEGATIVE AT POINTS ALONG THE
UPPER ONE-HALF OF THE SHEAR SURFACE - A
TENSION CRACK MAY BE NEEDED.
TABLE NO. 39
* Final Results for Side Forces and Stresses Between Slices. *
* (Results for Critical Shear Surface in Case of a Search.) *
SPENCER'S PROCEDURE USED TO COMPUTE FACTOR OF SAFETY
Factor of Safety = 2.322 Side Force Inclination = -13.58 Degrees
VALUES AT RIGHT SIDE OF SLICE
Y-Coord. of
Slice Side Side Force
No. X-Right Force Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
11 8
12 3
12 7
13 2
13 7
14 3
14.9
15.5
16.0
16.7
17.4
18.1
18.9
19.6
20.4
21.2
22.0
22.9
23.7
24.5
25.4
26.0
26.8
27.7
28.5
29.4
30.2
31.0
31.8
32.0
-77. 467.6
-110. 467.3
-99. 467.3
-47. 469.1
40. 459.8
159. 463.0
304. 463 1
470. 462 9
593. 462 8
770. 462 4
935. 462 1
1085. 461 8
1214. 461 5
1318. 461.3
1395. 461.0
1442. 460.8
1459. 460.6
1443. 460.4
1396. 460.2
1318 460.1
1213 460.0
1119 459.9
974 459.9
813 459.8
643 459.8
471 459.8
304 459.9
153 459.9
28 460.0
0. 556.1
Fraction Sigma Sigma
of at at
Height Top Bottom
.438 -62.7
.518 -79.6
.677 -90.2
ABOVE -100.2
BELOW -110.7
BELOW -121.9
BELOW -133.7
050 -146.2
078 -155.2
110 -171.1
135 -181.5
154 -187.5
171 -189.9
.185 -189.4
.197 -186.3
208 -181.0
218 -173.8
227 -164.8
236 -154.2
244 -142.1
252 -128.6
258 -117.6
267 -101.7
276 -84.6
286 -66.0
298 -45.9
313 -23.7
.335 2.0
.324 -7.8
ABOVE-10000000.0
-137.1
-64.0
2.7
68.2
132.9
196.4
258.2
317.9
357.7
426.6
485.9
536.5
579.2
614.2
642.0
662.6
676.0
682.3
681.4
673.1
657.5
641.0
612.1
575.3
530.3
476.9
414.0
340.2
293.5
10000000.0
CHECK SUMS - (ALL SHOULD BE SMALL)
SUM OF FORCES IN VERTICAL DIRECTION =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF FORCES IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF MOMENTS ABOUT COORDINATE ORIGIN =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SHEAR STRENGTH/SHEAR FORCE CHECK-SUM =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
.00 (= .247E-03)
.00 (= .403E-03)
.92 (= .916E+00)
.00 (= .116E-03)
***** CAUTION ***** FORCES BETWEEN SLICES ARE NEGATIVE AT POINTS
ALONG THE UPPER ONE-HALF OF THE SHEAR SURFACE -
A TENSION CRACK MAY BE NEEDED.
***** CAUTION ***** SOME OF THE FORCES BETWEEN SLICES ACT AT POINTS
ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE SLOPE OR BELOW THE
SHEAR SURFACE - EITHER A TENSION CRACK MAY BE
NEEDED OR THE SOLUTION MAY NOT BE A VALID
SOLUTION.
Z
H)R!V'IO
UTEXAS3 - VER. 1.204 - 10/22/93 - (C) 1985-1993 S. G. WRIGHT
1 Copy Licensed to EMCON Baker-Shiflett, Inc., Fort Worth, TX.
Date: 5:12:1995 Time: 10:12:31 Input file: COPPELL2.DAT
TABLE NO. 1
* COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGNATION - UTEXAS3 *
* Originally Coded By Stephen G. Wright *
* Version No. 1.204 *
* Last Revision Date 10/22/93 *
* (C) Copyright 1985-1993 S. G. Wright *
* All Rights Reserved *
* RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS COMPUTER *
* PROGRAM SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY *
* HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT ANALYSES, EXPERIMENTAL *
* DATA OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE *
* ALGORITHMS AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THE COMPUTER *
* PROGRAM AND MUST HAVE READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS *
* PROGRAM BEFORE ATTEMPTING ITS USE. *
* NEITHER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS NOR STEPHEN G. WRIGHT *
* MAKE OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY W~TIES, EXPRESSED OR *
* IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS *
* OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM. *
TABLE NO. 2
* NEW PROFILE LINE DATA *
PROFILE LINE 1 - MATERIAL TYPE
GROUND SURFACE
Point X Y
1 .000 470.000
2 36.000 470.000
3 52.000 470.000
4 88.000 470.000
5 118.000 460.000
6 140.000 460.000
All new profile lines defined - No old lines retained
TABLE NO. 3
* NEW MATERIAL PROPERTY DATA - CONVENTIONAL/FIRST-STAGE COMPUTATIONS *
DATA FOR MATERIAL TYPE 1
SUBGRADE LAYER
Unit weight of material = 125.000
CONVENTIONAL (ISOTROPIC) SHEAR STRENGTHS
Cohesion 200.000
Friction angle 16.000 degrees
No (or zero) pore water pressures
TABLE NO. 10
* NEW SURFACE PRESSURE DATA - CONVENTIONAL/FIRST-STAGE COMPUTATIONS *
ALL NEW DATA INPUT - NO OLD DATA RETAINED
Surface Pressures -
Normal Shear
Point X Y Pressure Stress
1 .000 470.000 42.000
2 36.000 470.000 42.000
3 36.000 470.000 .000
4 52.000 470.000 .000
5 52.000 470.000 42.000
6 88.000 470.000 42.000
000
000
000
000
000
000
TABLE NO. 15
* NEW ANALYSIS/COMPUTATION DATA *
Circular Shear Surface(s)
Automatic Search Performed
Starting Center Coordinate for Search at -
Required accuracy for critical center (= minimum
spacing between grid points) = 1.000
Critical shear surface not allowed to pass below Y =
For the initial mode of search
all circles pass through the point at -
x =
y =
Seismic coefficient = .010
Short form of output will be used for search
90.000
480.000
118.000
460.000
.000
THE FOLLOWING REPRESENT EITHER DEFAULT OR PREVIOUSLY DEFINED VALUES:
Initial trial estimate for the factor of safety = 3.000
Initial trial estimate for side force inclination = 15.000 degrees
(Applicable to Sponcer's procedure only)
Maximum number of iterations allowed for
calculating the factor of safety = 40
Allowed force imbalance for convergence = 100.000
Allowed moment imbalance for convergence = 100.000
Initial trial values for factor of safety (and side force inclination
for Spencer's procedure) will be kept constant during search
Maximum subtended angle to be used for subdivision of the
circle into slices = 3.00 degrees
Depth of crack = .000
Search will be continued to locate a more critical shear
surface (if one exists) after the initial mode is complete
Depth of water in crack = .000
Unit weight of water in crack = 62.400
Conventional (single-stage) computations to be performed
Procedure used to compute the factor of safety: SPENCER
TABLE NO. 16
* NEW SLOPE GEOMETRY DATA *
NOTE - NO DATA WERE INPUT, SLOPE GEOMETRY DATA
WERE GENERATED BY THE PROGRAM
Slope Coordinates -
Point X
1 .000 470.000
2 36.000 470.000
3 52.000 470.000
4 88.000 470.000
5 118.000 460.000
6 140.000 460.000
TABLE NO. 20
* SHORT-FORM TABLE FOR SEARCH WITH CIRCULAR SHEAR SURFACES *
Center Coordinates of
Critical Circle
Mode X Y
1 Fixed Point at 105.000 485.000
X = 118.0
Y = 460.0
2 Tangent Line 106.000 486.000
at Y = 456.8
3 Constant Radius 106.000 486.000
Of R = 29.2
1-Stage
Factor Side
of Force
Radius Safety Inclin.
28.178 2.337 -11.98
29.178 2.329 -12.08
29.178 2.329 -12.08
TABLE NO. 21
***** i-STAGE FINAL CRITICAL CIRCLE INFORMATION
X Coordinate of Center 106.000
Y Coordinate of Center 486.000
Radius 29.178
Factor of Safety 2.329
Side Force Inclination -12.08
Number of circles tried
No. Of circles F calc. for
178
149
TABLE NO. 38
* Final Results for Stresses Along the Shear Surface *
, (Results for Critical Shear Surface in Case of a Search.) *
SPENCER'S PROCEDURE USED TO COMPUTE FACTOR OF SAFETY
Factor of Safety = 2.329 Side Force Inclination = -12.08 Degrees
........ VALUES AT CENTER OF BASE OF SLICE .........
Slice
No. X-center
i 82.0
2 82.9
3 83.9
4 84.9
5 86.0
6 87.2
7 87.9
8 88.6
9 89.9
10 91.2
11 92.5
12 93.9
13 95.3
14 96.7
15 98.2
16 99.6
17 101.1
18 102.7
19 104.2
20 105.5
21 106.8
22 108.3
23 109.8
24 111.3
25 112.8
26 114.3
27 115.7
28 117.2
29 117.9
30 118.6
Y-center
469.4
468.1
467.0
465.8
464.8
463.7
463.1
462.6
461.7
460.9
460.1
459.5
458.9
458.4
457.9
457.5
457.2
457.0
456.9
456.8
456.8
456.9
457.1
457 3
457 6
458 0
458 5
459 1
459 4
459 7
Total
Normal
Stress
10.2
128.7
249.2
370.4
491.2
610.7
683.3
698.2
767.2
829.1
883.2
929.0
966.0
993.8
1012.0
1020.2
1018.0
1005.0
981.0
952.3
913.9
858.3
790.3
709.5
615.5
507.8
385.6
248.2
167.4
119.2
Effective
Normal
Stress
10.2
128.7
249.2
370.4
491.2
610.7
683.3
698.2
767.2
829.1
883.2
929.0
966.0
993.8
1012.0
1020.2
1018 0
1005 0
981 0
952 3
913 9
858 3
790.3
709.5
615.5
507.8
385.6
248.2
167.4
119.2
Shear
Stress
87 1
101 7
116 6
131 5
146 4
161 1
170 0
171 9
180 4
188 0
194 6
200.3
204.8
208.3
210.5
211.5
211.2
209.6
206.7
203.2
198.4
191.6
183.2
173.3
161.7
148.4
133.4
116.5
106.5
100.6
CHECK SUMS - (ALL SHOULD BE SMALL)
SUM OF FORCES IN VERTICAL DIRECTION =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF FORCES IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF MOMENTS ABOUT COORDINATE ORIGIN =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SHEAR STRENGTH/SHEAR FORCE CHECK-SUM =
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
.00
.00
2.24
.00
(= .575E-03)
(= .127E-02)
(= .224E+01)
(= .226E-03)
TABLE NO. 39
* Final Results for Side Forces and Stresses Between Slices.
* (Results for Critical Shear Surface in Case of a Search.)
SPENCER'S PROCEDURE USED TO COMPUTE FACTOR OF SAFETY
Factor of Safety = 2.329 Side Force Inclination = -12.08 Degrees
............... VALUES AT RIGHT SIDE OF SLICE ................
Y-Coord. of Fraction Sigma Sigma
Slice Side Side Force of at at
No. X-Right Force Location Height Top Bottom
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
82.5
83.4
84.4
85.5
86.6
87.7
88.0
89.2
90.5
91.8
93.2
94.6
96.0
97 4
98 9
100 4
101 9
103 4
104 9
106 0
107 5
109 0
110 6
112 1
113 6
115 0
116 5
117.9
118.0
119.2
-64. 469.3
0. -816.2
180. 466.5
461. 466.0
828. 465.3
1262. 464.6
1363. 464.4
1809. 463.7
2250. 463.1
2670. 462.5
3054. 462.0
3389. 461.5
3662. 461.0
3865. 460.6
3989. 460.2
4031. 459.9
3986. 459.6
3857. 459.4
3646. 459.2
3454. 459.1
3120. 459.0
2729. 459.0
2295. 459.0
1836. 459.1
1374. 459.2
932. 459.4
539. 459.6
224. 459.8
200. 459.8
0. 591.5
.423
BELOW
.041
147
180
195
197
217
234
247
258
267
275
.282
289
295
301
307
313
318
325
333
343
356
375
406
.467
.664
.718
ABOVE
-26.8 -72.7
-61.9 61.9
-85.2 182.4
-106.9 297.9
-129.0 409.6
-151.8 517.0
~157.0 539.9
-164.9 638.9
-166.9 724.9
-164.8 799.6
-159.7 863.9
-152.3 918.0
-143.0 962.2
-132.1 996.2
-119.7 1019.9
-106.0 1033.0
-91.0 1035.2
-74.6 1026.3
-56.8 1005.8
-43.5 984.5
-23.0 943.4
-.3 889.4
25.3 821.9
55.1 739.6
92.2 640.4
144.5 519.7
240.3 360.1
621.9 5.6
757.7 -101.7
.0 .0
CHECK SUMS - (ALL SHOULD BE SMALL)
SUM OF FORCES IN VERTICAL DIRECTION = .00 (= .575E-03)
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF FORCES IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION = .00 (= .127E-02)
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SUM OF MOMENTS ABOUT COORDINATE ORIGIN = 2.24 (= .224E+01)
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
SHEAR STRENGTH/SHEAR FORCE CHECK-SUM = .00 (= .226E-03)
SHOULD NOT EXCEED .100E+03
***** CAUTION ***** FORCES BETWEEN SLICES ARE NEGATIVE AT POINTS
ALONG THE UPPER ONE-HALF OF THE SHEAR SURFACE -
A TENSION CRACK NAY BE NEEDED.
***** CAUTION ***** SOME OF THE FORCES BETWEEN SLICES ACT AT POINTS
ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE SLOPE OR BELOW THE
SHEAR SURFACE - EITHER A TENSION CRACK MAY BE
NEEDED OR THE SOLUTION MAY NOT BE A VALID
SOLUTION.