ST0301-LR031124 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
BETHEL AND COPPELL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
COPPELL, TEXAS
TMI REPORT NO. DE 03-155
TO
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
DALLAS, TEXAS
BY
TERRA-MAR, INC.
DALLAS / FORT WORTH / HOUSTON / AUSTIN
NOVEMBER 24, 2003
DE03-155 TERRA-MAR
TERRA-MAR
Consulting Engineers · Geotechnical · Environmental · Construction Materials Testing
DALLAS ' FORT WORTH ' HOUSTON * AUSTIN ' LONGVIEW
November 24, 2003
Ms. Tricia H. Hatley, P.E.
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
1701 Market Street, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75202-2001
Re:
Geotechnical Investigation
Bethel and Coppell Road Reconstruction
Coppell, Texas
TMI Report No.: DE03-155
Dear Ms. Hatley:
The attached report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed for
the above referenced project.
This report provides recommendations to guide design and construction of the bridge
foundations, bridge approach retaining walls, and roadway pavement. The results of the
field and laboratory investigations are also presented in this report.
It has been our pleasure to work with you on this project. Please call us if you have any
questions or if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
TER~-MAR, INC. ~ ........................
Roger K. Southwo~h, P.E.
Project nager
/ Tim G. Abrams, P.E.
/ Manager- Geotechnical Se~ices
Copies Submitted: (3)
11050 Ables Lane, Dallas, Texas 75229 Phone: 972-488-8800 Fax: 972-488-8080
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
'i .0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1 ,'1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................
'1.2PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION ...................................................... 1
20 FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................. 2
3,0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................ 3
4,0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 3
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 4
5.1 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 4
5.2GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 4
6.0 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................ 5
6.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING RESISTANCE ................................................................. 5
6.2GROUP EFFECTS ................................................................................................. 5
6.3 POINT-OF-FIXITY .................................................................................................. 6
6.4DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................... 6
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 7
7.'1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 7
7.2WALL BACKFILL .................................................................................................... 7
7.3LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ............................................................................ 8
7.4WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM ................................................................................. 9
8,0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL STABILIZATION ...........................................................9
8.1 PROJECT HISTORY ............................................................................................. 9
8.2TRENCH BACKFILL EVALUATION ..................................................................... 10
8.3 BACKFILL STABILIZATION ................................................................................. 10
9,0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 11
9.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................... 1
9.2DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADING ............................................................................... 1
9.3 PAVEMENT SECTIONS ....................................................................................... 12
9.4SULFATE INDUCED HEAVE CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 12
9.5PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE .....................................................................13
9.6 PAVEMENT JOINTS ............................................................................................ 13
9.TLIME STABILIZATION .......................................................................................... 14
9.8GENERAL PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................ 14
10.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 14
11.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 15
)E03-155 TERRA-MAA
FIGURES
FIGURE
SITE VICINITY MAP ............................................................................................................. 1
PLAN OF BORINGS ............................................................................................................. 2
LOG OF BORINGS ............................................................................................................... 5
KEY TO THE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS AND SYMBOLS ON BORING LOGS ...................... 13
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
LIME/PI SERIES AND SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS ............................................ A
PATTON, BURK & THOMPSON BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY DATA .................... B
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA ..................................................................................................... C
DE03-155 T~- K~r,A-MAR
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
BETHEL AND COPPELL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
COPPELL, TEXAS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of reconstructing sections of Bethel Road and Coppell Road in Coppell,
Texas. Bethel Road will be reconstructed from Freeport Parkway east about 5,300 feet to
Denton Tap Road. The section of Coppell Road from Bethel Road north about 1,930 feet to
a point about 130 feet north of Cooper Lane will also be reconstructed. The project limits are
shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
Bethel and Coppell Roads currently consist of two-lane roads with asphalt pavement sections
and side ditches. The new roadways will have two lanes with curb and gutters. The planned
lane widths are 14 feet. The pavement will be Portland cement concrete. A new bridge will
be constructed for Bethel Road over Grapevine Creek. Retaining walls may be required at
the bridge approaches. It is understood that the walls will be about two feet high.
Grade changes of less than about 1 to 2 feet will be required to develop the pavement
subgrade elevations. However, the site grades leading up to the planned bridge will be
raised about 2 feet to provide additional freeboard above the 100-year flood plain.
A portion of Bethel Road has experienced distress due to settlement of sewer trench backfill.
Stabilization of this trench backfill, if warranted, is desired prior to new road construction.
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The purposes of this geotechnical investigation were to evaluate subsurface conditions along
the planned roadway alignments and to develop geotechnical recommendations to guide
design and construction of the bridge foundations, bridge approach retaining walls, and
roadway pavement. Our scope of work included:
1. Drilling six borings to evaluate the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions along the
roadways.
2. Recommendations for design of drilled shaft bridge foundations, including estimated
depth of bearing stratum, allowable bearing resistance, point of fixity, and estimated
foundation settlements.
DE03-155 PAGE 1 'FEI~RA-MAR
Recommendations for design of retaining walls, including allowable bearing resistance,
sliding resistance, equivalent fluid pressures, and drainage and backfill requirements.
4. Recommendations for reducing the potential for future settlement and cracking of the
section of Bethel Road pavement over a utility trench.
5. Recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation and recommended sections for
Portland cement concrete pavement.
6. Discussion of the geotechnical conditions that could impact construction.
2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Four borings were drilled to depths of 10 feet for the roadways and two borings were drilled to
depths of 50 and 55 feet for the planned bridge. The approximate boring locations are shown
on the Plan of Borings, Figures 2 through 4. The results of the field investigation are
presented on the Logs of Borings, Figures 5 through 12. A key to the descriptive terms and
symbols used on the logs is presented on Figure 13.
Truck-mounted drill rigs were used to advance the borings and to obtain samples for
laboratory evaluation. The overburden soils were sampled with split-spoon and thin-walled,
seamless tube samplers. The underlying shale was cored using a rock core barrel. The
samples were extruded in the field, logged, sealed, and packaged to protect them from
disturbance and to maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our
laboratory.
Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed to evaluate the relative density of the
granular soils. The SPT consists of measuring the penetration of a standard two-inch-
diameter split-spoon sampler driven by a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches.
The SPT results are shown at the respective depths on the boring logs.
Texas Cone Penetrometer tests (TCP) were performed to evaluate the bearing properties of
the shale formation. The TCP test consists of measuring the penetration of a 3-inch-diameter
cone driven by a 170-pound hammer falling a distance of 24 inches. The TCP test results
are shown at the respective depths on the boring logs.
The ground surface elevation and project station number at each boring location is indicated
at the top of the boring logs. The elevations and station numbers were estimated from the
plan and profile sheets provided by Freese and Nichols, Inc. and should be considered
approximate.
DE03-155 PAGE 2 TE~RA-MAR
Water levels within the borings were recorded during drilling and at completion of drilling
operations. The boreholes were backfilted with auger cuttings after the water level readings
were recorded. The water level readings are presented on the boring logs.
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed to characterize the engineering properties of the soil and
rock formations. Classification tests included liquid and plastic limits, moisture contents, and
dry unit weights. Unconfined compression tests were performed to evaluate the undrained
compressive strength of the rock core samples. Hand penetrometer tests were performed to
estimate the consistency of the cohesive soils. The laboratory test results are provided at the
appropriate sample depths on the boring logs.
Soluble sulfate tests were performed to evaluate the potential for lime/sulfate induced heave.
A lime/Pi series test was performed to evaluate the optimum lime application rate for lime
stabilization of the pavement subgrade. The soluble sulfate and lime/PI series test results
are presented on the Analytical Report provided in Appendix A.
The soil and rock field classifications were checked in the laboratory through visual
classification of samples. Samples were classified according to color, texture, predominant
material type, and consistency.
4.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
A report entitled Geotechnical Consulting Services, Sewer Line Backfill, Bethel Road -
Grapevine Creek to Near Royal Lane, Coppell, Texas was prepared by Patton, Burk &
Thompson (PBT Project No. 1345 dated January 21, 1998). This report was prepared to
present PBT findings on the cause of pavement cracking and to present recommendations to
prevent further pavement distress. PBT's study included drilling nine borings along Bethel
Road and laboratory testing of the recovered samples. The report findings indicated that the
pavement distress was due to trench backfill settlement.
Information from this previous investigation was used to supplement the information obtained
from the borings drilled for this project. Copies of their boring logs and laboratory test data
are attached in Appendix B.
)E03-155 PAGE 3 TERRA-MAR
5,0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS
A description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, including descriptions
of the soil and rock types sampled, and the layer depths and thickness are presented on the
boring logs. A brief description of the subsurface conditions encountered is provided below.
Note that the depths on the boring logs refer to the depth from the ground surface at the time
of the investigation. Boundaries between the various strata are approximate.
Very stiff to I~ard sandy clay and clayey sand fill was encountered in Boring B-t to a depth of
about 8% feet. Very stiff to hard clay fill was encountered in Borings B-5 and B-6 to
respective depths of about 4 feet and 14 feet. Fill was not encountered in the other borings,
The fill in Boring B-1 was underlain by naturally occurring dense sand from 8½ feet to the
boring termination depth of 10 feet. Borings B-2 through B-4 encountered very stiff to hard
sandy clay to the boring termination depth of 10 feet.
The fill in Boring B-5 was underlain by very stiff to hard clay to about 12 feet and interbedded
layers of cemented sand and weathered shale 12 to 20 f'eet. Unweathered shale was
encountered from 20 feet to the boring termination depth of 50 feet, The fill in Boring B-6
was underlain by very stiff to hard sandy clay to about 19 feet and weathered shale from
about 19 feet to 24 feet. Unweathered shale was encountered from 24 feet to the boring
termination depth of 55 feet.
The clays and sandy clays are moderately plastic, with liquid limits ranging between 27 and
59 percent and plasticity indices (PI) ranging between 13 and 38 percent. The clay in
Borings B-5 and B-6 had unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 1.2 to 9.6 tsf. The
unconfined compressive strength of the shale ranged from 15.6 to 57.4 tons per square foot
(tsf) with an average compressive strength of 27,1 tsf. The TCP tests in the shale ranged
from 1 to 3 inches per 100 blows, with an average penetration of 1% inches per 100 blows.
5.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Seepage water was encountered in Borings B-1 and B-6 at respective depths of 4 feet and
20 feet during drilling. Seepage water was not encountered in the other borings during
drilling. The groundwater conditions may change with variations in climatic conditions,
surface water runoff and the water level in the Grapevine Creek.
DE03-155 PAGE 4 TERRA-MAR
6,0 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS
6.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING RESISTANCE
Straight-sided drilled shafts founded in the unweathered dark gray shale formation are
recommended for support of the bridge. Unweathered shale was encountered at depths
ranging from about 20 to 24 feet (about elevation 474 to 476) at the bride boring locations,
The recommended end-bearing and skin-friction resistance valueS for design of the ddlled
shafts bearing into the unweathered shale are presented in Table 1. The end-bearing
resistance includes a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The skin-friction resistance includes a
factor of safety of at least 2.0.
TABLE 1 - RECOMMENDED DRILLED SHAFT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Allowable Skin-Friction Resistance
Allowable End-Bearing
Elevation Resistance Compression Tension
El. 474 to 460 30,000 psf 2,700 psf 2,000 psf
EL 460 to 445 40,000 psf 3,400 psf 2,600 psf
Desi.qn Notes for Table 1
The recommended end-bearing resistance is based on a minimum penetration of two
shaft diameters or four feet, whichever is greater, into the unweathered dark gray shale.
The higher allowable end-bearing resistance can be considered after a minimum
penetration of one-shaft diameter into the higher strength shale. For example, a 36-inch-
diameter shaft would have to extend to El. 457 in order to use the 40,000 psf allowable
end-bearing resistance. The minimum penetration depth should measured from the top
of unweathered shale or from the maximum scour depth elevation, whichever is deeper.
The skin-friction resistance should be neglected in the upper 2 feet of penetration in the
dark gray shale. The allowable skin-friction resistance should also be neglected for any
portion of the shaft extending above the maximum scour depth of the creek channel or for
any portion where casing is used.
6.2 GROUP EFFECTS
For groups of drilled shafts, where the spacing between shafts will be less than 3.0 shaft
diameters (3.0D) center to center, a reduction factor should be applied to the allowable skin-
friction resistance for the determination of required shaft penetrations. For shafts touching, a
DE03-155 PAGE 5
reduction factor of 50 percent should be used. For a spacing of 3.0D, where D is the
diameter of the largest adjacent shaft, no reduction is necessary. A straight-line interpolated
reduction should be used between drilled shafts touching and a spacing of 3.0D.
6,3 POINT-OF-FIXITY
A point of fixity of 7 feet plus two shaft diameters below the ground surface or below the
maximum scour depth of the creek channel, whichever is deeper, is recommended for the
structural analysis of the bridge columns. The drilled shafts should penetrate the
unweathered shale at least 2 shaft diameters below the top of unweathered shale or below
the maximum scour depth in shale, whichever is deeper, to develop the recommended point-
of-fixity.
6.4 DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Groundwater seepage was encountered in Boring B-6 at a depth of about 20 feet during
drilling and the shale is overlain by sands and sandy clays. Groundwater seepage and
flowing sand may be encountered during drilled shaft excavation. Construction of the drilled
shafts will require the use of temporary casing if caving sands or seepage water in excess of
2 inches is present when the borehole reaches its planned depth, Temporary casing should
be seated below the zone of seepage and properly sealed to prevent seepage into the drilled
shaft excavation. Care must be taken that a sufficient head of plastic concrete is maintained
within the casing during extraction.
Concrete for the drilled shafts should be in accordance with American Concrete Institute
Specification ACI 336. The drilled shaft concrete should have a slump between 5 and 7
inches. The concrete should be placed in a manner to avoid striking the sides of the shaft
and reir~forcing steel. The drilled shafts should be filled with concrete within 8 hours after the
design penetration is reached.
The structural plans for the existing bridge should be reviewed to check that the new shaft
construction will not conflict with the locations of existing foundations. Existing foundations
should not be removed; they should be cut off below-grade.
The dark gray shale may contain very hard sandstone layers. Experience indicates that
discontinuous sandstone layers can range from several inches thick to several feet thick and
can have compressive strengths in excess of 8,000 psi. Difficulties in penetrating these
DE03-155 PAGE 6 TERRA-MAR
layers using conventional drilling equipment may be encountered. Hard rock drilling
equipment or rock chisels could be required to get through the sandstone layers. It is
recommended that a local foundation contractor familiar with the local rock conditions be
retained for foundation construction.
Allowable bearing resistance recommendations provided in this report are based on proper
construction procedures, including maintaining a dry shaft excavation and proper cleaning of
the bearing surfaces prior to placing the reinforcing steel and concrete. The drilled shaft
excavations should be inspected to check that the drilled holes are properly cleaned and dry
prior to concrete placement, and to help verify the bearing stratum.
7.0 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed retaining walls are recommended to be supported by spread footing
foundations. The foundations can bear into the existing very stiff to hard clay fill. A
maximum net allowable bearing resistance of 2,500 psf is recommended for design of the
footings. The allowable bearing resistance includes a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The
foundations should be a minimum of 24 inches wide and should extend a minimum of 18
inches below the final exterior site grade.
A coefficient of sliding resistance of 0.45 is recommended for footings founded on clay.
Foundation keys can be designed using a passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of
embedment. The wall design should have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding
The foundation bearing grade should be observed and tested by the geotechnical engineer or
a representative of the engineer to check that the foundation soils are suitable for support.
Any unsuitable bearing soil should be removed and replaced with fill compacted to at least 95
percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density at a moisture content between -1 and
+3 percentage points of optimum.
7.2 WALL BACKFILL
The retaining walls will be subject to lateral earth pressures from the soil backfill against the
walls. The type of material used as backfill against the walls will affect the lateral earth
pressures that the walls must be designed to resist. Three types of locally available material
are recommended for the wall backfill. These backfill types include:
DE03-155 PAGE 7
1. On-Site Clay - On-site clay having a PI less than 40 percent can be used for wall backfill
for walls up to 5 feet high.
2. Select Fill - Select fill should have a liquid limit less than 40 percent and a plasticity index
(PI) less than 15 percent. The fill should have an effective shearing resistance of at least
28 degrees.
3. Free-Draininq Granular Fill - Free-draining granular fill includes sand, crushed stone,
crushed limestone, sand-gravel mixture, washed crushed concrete, or a sand-crushed
stone mixture. The material should have less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve
and less than 30 percent passing the No. 40 sieve. The minus 40 sieve material should
be non plastic. The granular fill should have an effective angle of shearing resistance of
at least 34 degrees.
The wall backfill should be placed in maximum 8-inch lifts and uniformly compacted to at
least 95 percent of the standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density for cohesive
soils or to a relative density of at least 70 percent for granular soils (ASTM 4253 and 4254).
The moisture content for cohesive soils should range between -1 and +3 percentage points
of optimum. Granular fill should be placed at a moisture content which will allow the desired
relative density to be achieved.
Heavy compaction equipment should not be used directly against the walls. Hand-operated
equipment should be used within 4 feet of the walls.
7.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Recommended equivalent fluid pressures for retaining wall design are presented in Table 2.
Active equivalent earth pressures are recommended for retaining walls where the top of the
wall is free to deflect. At-rest equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for walls where
the top of the wall is restrain(~d from movement. Equivalent fluid pressures are presented for
both drained and undrained conditions, and a level backfill behind the wall, The wall backfill
should extend at least 18 inches from the wall and on a one horizontal to two vertical back
slope behind the wall to develop the recommended lateral earth pressures. The wall design
should include any surcharge loads behind the wall.
DE03-155 PAGE 8 'FIEI~RA-MAR
TABLE 2 - EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURES
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
Active, pcf At-Rest, pcf
Wall Backfill
Drained Undrained Drained Undrained
Condition Condition Condition Condition
On-Site Clays for retaining walls 55 95 80 105
up to 5 feet high
Select Fill 45 85 65 95
Free-Draining Granular Soils 35 80 55 90
7.4 WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The walls should have a wall backfill drainage system if a drained condition is assumed for
design to reduce the potential buildup of hydrostatic pressures against the walls. Weep
holes can be used for backfill drainage for walls less than 5 feet high. One-cubic-foot of free-
draining aggregate is recommended behind each weep hole. The weep holes should be
spaced no greater than 10-foot on-center, with a minimum of two, 3-inch-diameter weep
holes per wall. The drainage aggregate should meet the gradation requirements for ASTM
C-33 coarse concrete aggregate No. 57. A geotextile should be placed between the
drainage material and the backfill soils. The geotextile is recommended to consist of Mirafi
140NL, Amoco 4545, or equivalent.
8.0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL STABILIZATION
8,1 PROJECT HISTORY
A sanitary sewer was constructed along the eastbound lane of Bethel Road between January
1996 and May or June 1996. Prior to sewer construction, the existing asphalt pavement was
removed. The roadway was re-paved with asphalt following sewer construction. It was
reported that the sewer trench ranged from about 10 to 15 feet deep and that the trench was
at least 4 feet wide.
Patton, Burk, and Thompson (PBT) reported in their Geotechnical Consulting Services report
that pavement rutting and settlement was present along the eastbound lane in November
)E03-155 PAGE 9 'FEI~I~J~-MAR
1997. In their report, they concluded that the pavement distress was due to improper
compaction of the sewer trench backfill. They recommended complete removal and
recompaction of the backfill, partial removal and recompaction of the backfill, or placement of
a geogrid to bridge over the poorly compacted backfill.
It is understood that the City of Coppell elected to recompact the upper 3 feet of the backfill to
a minimum of 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. The existing
roadway was then re-paved.
The existing roadway is currently in poor condition, with extensive rutting and transverse and
longitudinal cracking. The distress is most pronounced in the eastbound lane near the
intersection with Coppell Road, especially in the vicinity of the sewer manholes, where the
pavement has settled and the manholes protrude above the surrounding pavement surface.
The existing roadway will be milled and an overlay will be placed around December 2003.
Complete reconstruction of the roadway is expected to occur around June 2005.
8.2 TRENCH BACKFILL EVALUATION
PBT's geotechnical report concluded that the pavement distress was most likely due
inadequate compaction of the sewer trench backfill. The backfill has now been in-place over
seven years and the upper three feet of the backfill has been removed and replaced with
properly compacted fill. The majority of the backfill settlement may have occurred and
additional future settlement of the backfill is not expected to be as pronounced as the
settlement that has occurred to date.
The roadway reconstruction will not occur for about 1~,'~ years, which will allow additional
settlement of the trench backfill to occur prior to reconstruction. The pavement will be
overlaid with asphalt in December 2003 or January 2004. This overlay will provide an
opportunity to observe if settlement is still occurring along the trench and around manholes.
8,3 BACKFILL STABILIZATION
Although it is expected that the majority of the trench backfill settlement has already
occurred, there is a risk of additional future settlement that could impact the riding surface of
the new pavement. The least risk alternative would be to remove the backfill in its entirety
DE03-155 PAGE 10 TERRA-MAR
and to replace it with properly compacted fill in the trench and flowable backfill around the
manholes.
A second alternative would be to monitor the performance of the proposed pavement overlay.
If settlement related distress is not observed in the overlay prior to road reconstruction, the
risk of future trench settlement could be considered Iow and the new pavement could be
constructed without special pavement subgrade treatment or pavement design.
If settlement related distress is observed, the pavement could be designed to bridge over the
trench backfill in lieu of complete removal of the fill. Treatment of the backfill would not be
required and the pavement would be designed to accommodate the trench backfill
settlement. With this alternative, the pavement should be designed to span over a 6-foot
wide void.
9.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 PAVEMENT DESIGN
A pavement analysis was performed using the Pavement Analysis Software (Version 5.0) of
the American Concrete Pavement Association. The computer program is based on the
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, published by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A description of the pavement design
methodology and recommended pavement sections is provided in the following sections.
9.2 DESIGN TRAFFIC LOADING
The traffic counts taken at several locations and dates for Bethel Road and Coppell Road
were provided by Freese and Nichols for use in estimating the traffic loading for pavement
design. A summary of this data is provided in Appendix C. On the basis of this data, a
design traffic loading 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd) was used for the design of Bethel Road
and a design traffic loading of 5,400 vpd was used for the design of Coppell Road.
The design lane traffic loading was calculated using a directional distribution factor of 0.5 and
a lane distribution factor of 1.0. The resulting average daily traffic (ADT) for the Bethel Road
design lane was 3,800 vpd and the ADT for the Coppell Road design lane was 2,700 vpd. It
was assumed that the ADT was an average for the life of the pavement and that it included
any anticipated traffic growth. The design period for the pavement was 20 years.
DE03-155 PAGE 11 I'£1~RA-MAR
Information regarding the frequency, type and distribution of the truck traffic was not
available. Pavement designs were therefore determined for 5 percent, 10 percent, and 15
percent truck traffic. A truck factor of 1.9 was used to calculate the number of equivalent 18-
kip single axle loads (ESALs) for the truck traffic. The project traffic engineer should review
the assumed traffic loading to confirm that it is representative of the anticipated loading.
9.3 PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Tables 3 and 4 present the minimum recommended pavement sections for Portland Cement
Concrete pavement for the assumed traffic loading conditions.
TABLE 3 - BETHEL ROAD PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Portland Lime Stabilized Section
Percent Truck ESAL's Cement Subgrade Thickness
Traffic Concrete
5 percent 2,650,000 8.0 inches 6 inches 13 inches
10 percent 5,280,000 8.5 inches 6 inches 14 inches
15 percent 7,920,000 9.0 inches 6 inches 15 inches
TABLE 4 - COPPELL ROAD PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Portland Lime Stabilized Section
Percent Truck ESAL's Cement Subgrade Thickness
Traffic Concrete
5 percent 1,880,000 7.5 inches 6 inches 12.5 inches
10 percent 3,750,000 8.0 inches 6 inches 13.5 inches
15 percent 5,620,000 8.5 inches 6 inches 14.0 inches
9.4 SULFATE INDUCED HEAVE CONSIDERATIONS
Sulfate concentration tests were performed to evaluate whether or not a serious risk exists for
lime/sulfate induced heave. The test results indicated a soluble sulfate concentration of 545
mg/kg for one of the samples tested. Sulfates were not detected in the other three samples
tested. The concentrations of soluble sulfates in the soil samples are well below the
DE03-155 PAGE 12 TERRA-MAR
threshold levels generally considered problematic. Therefore, the potential for sulfate
induced heave is considered to be Iow.
9.5 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
The concrete should be designed to have a minimum 28-day flexural strength of 650 psi,
determined by the third-point loading method (ASTM C-78). All concrete should be air
entrained with a total air content of 4 to 6 percent. The use of air entraining admixtures
should conform to ASTM Designation C-260.
Slip formed concrete should have a maximum slump of 2 inches. Hand placed concrete
should have a maximum slump of 4 inches if no plastizer is used. Slip formed concrete is
preferred. The concrete surface should be protected with a curing compound or moisture
blankets as soon as possible after the concrete is placed. The concrete should meet the
requirements of the North Central Texas Council of Governments current "Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction".
9.6 PAVEMENT JOINTS
Proper joint placement and design is critical to pavement performance. Contraction joints
should typically be placed at 15 feet on-center. The contraction joints should be saw cut as
soon as possible after placement of concrete but before shrinkage cracks occur. The
concrete should be saw cut at least 3/8 inch wide and 2 inches deep.
Isolation joints should be placed at drainage in-lets, manholes, T- and unsymmetrical
intersections, and anywhere differential movement between the pavement and a structure
may take place. They should also be placed in areas where new pavement will abut existing
pavement. The isolation joints should be ½ inch wide. Redwood expansion board ~hould be
used to fill the isolation joints.
Steel dowels should be used for Icad transfer at all joints transverse to traffic. The dowels
should be 18-inches long, placed 12 inches on-center, and located mid-height in the slab.
The dowel diameter should equal the slab thickness multiplied by 1/8 inch. Dowels are not
required for Icad transfer for isolation joints at drainage inlets and manholes. Where dowels
are used for Icad transfer at isolation joints, each dowel should be equipped with a closed-
end expansion cap to allow the joint to expand and contract. The cap should cover at least 2
inches of the dowel and should have a stop to hold the end of the cap at least 0.75 inch away
DE03-155 PAGE 13 TERRA-MAR
from the end of the dowel bar. The cap should fit the dowel tightly and should be watertight.
The half of the dowel with the capped end should be coated to permit horizontal movement.
All joints should be properly cleaned and sealed as soon as possible to avoid the infiltration of
water, small gravel, and other debris. Either cold-poured or hot-poured sealing material may
be used. Backing should be provided to hold the isolation joint sealant in place.
Manufacturers' instructions for mixing and installing the joint materials should be followed.
It is recommended that, as a minimum, the reinforcement steel consist of No. 3 bars
conforming to ASTM Designation A-615. The reinforcing steel should be placed on chairs
and spaced at a maximum of 24 inches on-center in each direction.
9.7 LIME STABILIZATION
The pavement subgrade should be lime stabilized in accordance with Item 4.6 of the North
Central Texas Standard Specifications for Public Works and Construction (NTCCOG).
Based upon the results of the lime/PI series tests, a minimum lime application rate of 6
percent by dry weight (27 pounds per square yard per 6-inch depth) is recommended for lime
stabilization. ~c~,.IZ, ~ tt
9.8 GENERAL PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Differential heave of the pavement could occur in areas where the pavement section is
underlain by active clays. The pavement service life may be reduced due to water infiltration
into the subgrade soils through heave induced cracks in the pavement section. A regular
maintenance program to seal pavement cracks will help prolong the service life of the
pavement.
The life of the pavement can be increased with proper drainage. The site should be graded
to provide positive drainage away from the pavement, Water must not be permitted to pond ·
adjacent to the pavement during or after construction. Backfill material capable of holding
water behind the curb should not be permitted. Flat pavement grades should be avoided.
10.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Pavement subgrade preparation should consist of the removing existing pavements, topsoil,
vegetation, and any other deleterious materials. Following removal operations the subgrade
DE03-155 PAGE 14 TERRA-MAR
should be proofrolled under the observation of the project geotechnical engineer or a
representative of the engineer. Proofrolling can generally be accomplished using a heavy (25
ton or greater total weight) rubber-tired piece of construction equipment, such as a loaded
tandem-axle dump truck, making several passes over the areas. Soft or compressible zones
should be removed to a firm subgrade and replaced with compacted fill. The overexcavation
backfill should consist of on-site clays compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) at a moisture content ranging between -2 and
+3 percentage points of optimum.
The site can then be raise to the planned finish grade with compacted fill. The fill should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density at a moisture
content ranging between -2 and +3 percentage points of optimum. Imported fill should
consist of sandy clay to clayey sand having a maximum liquid limit of 50 and a maximum PI
of 30. Imported fill that will be lime stabilized should be tested for sulfates in accordance with
TxDOT test method 620J.
11.0 LIMITATIONS
The professional services, which have been performed, the findings obtained, and the
recommendations prepared were accomplished in accordance with currently accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The possibility always exists that the
subsurface conditions at the site may vary from those encountered in the borings. If the
subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from what we have obtained
from test borings, we should be notified immediately so that the effects of these conditions on
design and construction can be addressed.
The recommendations given in this report were prepared exclusively for the use of the City of
Coppell, Freese and Nichols, Inc., and their consultants. The information supplied herein is
applicable only for the design of the previously described development to be constructed at
locations indicated at this site and should not be used for any other structures, locations, or
for any other purpose. Further, subsurface conditions can change with passage of time.
Recommendations contained herein are not considered applicable for an extended period
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 year after
completion of this report.
DE03-155 PAGE 15 TERRA-MAR
All contractors referring to this geotechnical report should draw their own conclusions
regarding excavations, trafficability etc. for bidding purposes. Terra-Mar, Inc. is not
responsible for conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these
data. This report is intended to guide preparation of project specifications and should not be
used as a substitute for the project specifications.
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 characteristics of the project, our office should be contacted immediately
since this may materially alter the recommendations.
All recommendations are contingent upon the opportunity of Terra-Mar, Inc. to observe
pavement construction and earthwork operations. If parties other than Terra-Mar, Inc. are
engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to
assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project.
We will retain the samples acquired for this project for a period of 30 days subsequent to the
submittal date printed on the report. After this period, the samples will be discarded unless
otherwise notified by the owner in writing.
Professional services provided in this geotechnical exploration have been 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, and groundwater.
The reproduction of this report or any part thereof, in plans or other documents supplied to
persons other than the owner, should bear language indicating that the information contained
therein is for foundation design purposes of the bridge and retaining walls. All contractors
referring to this geotechnical report should draw their own conclusions regarding excavations,
trafficability, etc., for bidding purposes. Terra-Mar is not responsible for conclusions,
opinions, or recommendations made by others based on these data.
DE03-155 PAGE 16 TERRA-MAR
FIGURES
DE03-155 TERRA-MAR
LOG OF BORING B-1
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - Ci~ of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
Date: 11/03103 Elev.: 497+ Location: Station: $2+80
Depth to water at completion of boring: DH
Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: 4.0'
Depth to caving when checked: was:
ELEVATION/ I SOIL EYMBOL$ !MC LL PL ;PI -2OO OD P.PEN UNCON Strar~
DEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLS DESCRIPTION, % % % % p~f t~f ~f
40s- ~,~s.oo- FILL- Tan clavev SAND (SC) I..
- 20/6.00"
-- -seepage @ 4'
...... ~o~.oo" Tan SAND (SP)
475' -
- 25
470' '
-30
Notes: Completion Depth: t0,0'
FIGURE
TERRA-MAR, INC.
LOG OF BORING B-2
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
Date: '1'1/05/03 Elev.: 503± Location: Station: 27+90
Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry
Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry
Depth to caving when checked: was:
ELEVATION/ I SOIL SYMBOLS
MC LL PL PI -200 DD P.PEN UNCON Strain
DEPTHI SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION
(feet~ & FIELD TEST DATA
- o ~ Hard dark brown sandy CLAY (CL)
Hard gray & brown sandy CLAY w/calcareous nodules &
49s- ~ I iron stains (GL)
490-
475 - ·
Notes: Completion Depth: 10.0'
FIGURE 6
TERRA-MAR. INC.
LOG OF BORING B-3
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-'155
Date: 11/05103 Elev.: 513± Location: Station:4+60
Depth to water at completion of boring: Dry
Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry
Depth to caving when checked: was:
I -200 DD P.PEN UNCON Strain
ELEVATION/ SOIL SYMBOLS MC LL PL PI
DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION
ifaetl & FIELD TEST DATA
-0 ~ Hard dark gray ~andy CL~Y w/some organics (CL)-- .................... 4, ~ ~? 29 4.8,~i~' ...........
510- · 4.8
Hard gray, light gray & orange sandy CL~Y (CL)
505- ' -.-- ----------- I~r~-~ n-~d~e~' .............................
~ & iron stains (CL) 2#8
500-
Notes: Completion Depth: 10.0'
FIGURE 7
TERRA-MAR, INC.
LOG OF BORING B-4
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
Date: 11105103 Bev.: 5'12± Location: Station: 7+75
Depth to water at completion of bering: Dry
Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: Dry
Depth to caving when checked: was:
ELEVATION/ I SOIL SYMBOLS MC LL PL PI -2D0 DDIP.PEN UNCON Strain
DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION
(feet~I & FIELD TEST DATA
--0 ~ -~ Very st~ ~a~'&'~e~'Oish brown sandy CLAY (CL)
5~0- ~s.oo- Very stiff gray, light-gray & orange sandy CL~Y (eL)
Light gray, tan & orange ~ndy ¢~Y ({21.)
Notes: Completion Depth: 10.0'
FIGURE 8
TERRA-MAR, INC.
LOG OF BORING B-5
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - Ci~ of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
Date: 11/05103 Elev.: 494+ Location: Station: 42+10
Depth to water at completion of boring: D~
Depth to water when checked: During Drilling was: D~
Depth to caving when checked: was:
ELEVAI3ONI I SOILSYMBOLS MC LL PL PI -200 DD P.PEN UNCON Strain
DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION % % % % pcf tsf tlr %
Ifeet)I & FIELD TEST DATA
-0 ~7 FILL - Very stiff to hard dark brown CLAY w/calcareous 4.S+
fraoments~ (CH) 42 16 26 4.6+
nodules
&
limestone
490-- Hard brown sh gray & tan SLAY w/o_ .nmvel & calcareou'~. _ - 'lb' ~' il ~ ..... ?o~.i, '~.~;.' "~.~" '~.~'
-5 nodules (CH) 4.S+
Hard brownish gray sandv CLAY, blocky, w/calcareous
nodules & gravel (CL) 4.E+
Hard light gray sandy CLAY w/iron stains & calcareous
r ................ ~.~ ...........
-,~,_,~-----=,- ,,',, _ _ ,
-~o Hard tan CLAY w/calcareous deposits & gravel (CH)
:::.::::::: Brown cemented SAND
;,-~-..~ Dark gray weathered SHALE
::::::::~ :='~ ~ 60/2.00"
::::::::::: ~o/2.oo-Gray cemented SAND w/interbedded weathered shale
i;i:iii!ii! layer
-~o .... .... ':': :~ Dark gray SHALE
~::::_~ -.
:_--Z_------_---~ 17 I 113.2 4.0 20,0 2.8
470 -
4~o - :: :::: _~
Notes: Completion Depth: 50.0'
FIGURE 9
TERRA-MAR, INC.
LOG OF BORING B-5
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - Cit~ of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
ELEVATION/ I SOIL SYMBOLS MC: LL PL -200 DD P.PEN UNCON Strair
DEPTH SAMPLER SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION ~,~
Dark gray SHALE
455-'
~' ~:->> -slickensided, w/tra~ pyrite ~ 44'
~otes: Compl,fion D~pth: $0.0'
FIGURE 10
TER~-MAR, INC.
LOG OF BORING B-6
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
Date: 11103/03 EIov.: 500± Location: Station: 44+00
Depth to water at completion of boring:
Depth to water when checked: was:
Depth to caving when checked: was:
ELEVA'nONI I SOIL SYMBOLS MC LL PL PI -200 DD P.PEN UNCON
DEPTH SAMPLERSYMBOLE DESCRIPTION % % % % p~ t,,f t,. %
(feet}I & FIELD TEST DATA
500
0
3" Asphaltic Concrete, 18" Read Base
FILL - Stiff to very stiff brown & tan CLA~Y w/shale & 4.$. 1.3 I '1~)~2'
limestone fragments, asphalt, fine gravel & some root
fibers
(CH) Is 2.5
~. Stiff tan & gray sandy CLAY (CL)
48§- -15 ~ ii 15 116.3 57.4
........................................ .;.¥~ ...........
Dark gray weathered SHALE
480--20
~/~i~s°." Dark gray SHALE w/fossil seams
475' '25
470' - 30 zZ-~-----~
:_- -__- _-_- _z
400-
Notes: Completion Depth: 55.0'
FtGURE
TERRA-MAR, INC.
LOG OF BORING B-6
Project: Bethell Road Reconstruction - City of Coppell, Texas Project No.: DE03-155
ELEVA'I1ON! I SOiL SYMBOLS MC LL I PL PI -200 DD P,PEN UNCON Strain
DEPTH .~AMPLER SYM BOLS DESCRIPTION
~ Dark gray SHALE w/fossil seams
.... .... 15 119.0 26.9 2.2
445- -ss ~
44o' -6O
Notes: Completion Depth:
FIGURE 12
TERRA-MAR, INC.
Symbol Description
Strata symbols
Fill
Asphaltic
Paving
KEY TO LOG TERMS & SYMBOLS
Symbol Description
Misc. symbols
Water table
when checked
Boring continues
Soil Samplers
I Thin Wall
Shelby Tube
Standard
Penetration
Test
TED Cone
Penetration
Test
Rock
Core
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on dates indicated using truck
mounted drilling equipment.
2. Water level observations are noted on boring logs.
3. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported on the
boring logs. Abbreviations used are:
DD - natural dry densit~ (poE) LL ~ liquid limit (%)
MC = natural moisture content (%) PL ~ plastic limit (%)
Uncon.~ unconfined compression (tsf) PI = plasticity index
p. Pen.= h~nd penetrometer (tsf) -200 = percent passing %200
4. Rook Cores
REC z (Recovery) sum of core sample recovered divided by length
of run, expressed as percentage.
RQD = (Rock Quality Designation) sum of core sample recovery 4"
or greater in length divided by the run, expressed as
percentage.
FIGURE 13
TERRA-MAR, INC,
APPENDIX A
DE03-155 TERRA-MAR
45
40
35
3O
25
20
15
10
5
0
-.-e-- Liquid Limit
--m-- Plastic Limit
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lime Additive (%)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lime Additive (%)
Soil Description:
Dark Brown Clay with calcareous nodules and
limestone fragments
Sample No.:
Boring B-5; 1 to 2 feet
LIME/PI SERIES TEST RESULTS
BETHEL & COPPELL ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
COPPELL, TEXAS
TERRA-MAR, /NC.
11050 Ables Ln - Dallas, Tx 75229
NOV, 14.~O03 3:12PM
11/14/2003
S .~e Des~4 t:Lon
--:~ 9231 D,m03.155 B2/1-~2
ANA-LAB
Nod~h Te×~
NO, 2/b
1801E. Lamar Blvd,# 118 - Arlington, TX 78011
817/261-6404 FAX8171261-711u
pro oct Becel.red. Ma:LZ
'"'3923:2 DE03"~-~ 155 B3/1-2
/ /
Corporate Shipping: 2600 Dudley Rd., Kiigero, TX 75662 - http:flwv~v,ana-Itb.com
Corporate Mailing: P,O, Box 9000, KIIgore, TX 75663-900~) - 003/~84,.0651 - FAX 903/984-5014
MEMBER
J uu
NOV, 18. 200B 11:15^M
THE COMPLETE SERVICE ~A~ ~
ANA-LAB
North l'exa~ Region
TER8
NO, 361 P. 2
1801 E, Lamer Bird, # 116 -- Arlington, TX 76011
817/281-8404 FAX 8171261-7115
Taken
S4S * m~/k~ 307 11/13/2003 Fgo
96,7 % 0.1 11/Zl/~003 TDD
Corporate Shipping: 26o0 Dudley Rd., ~lgom, TX 7~82 .- h~'J/www, ena-lab.~om
Corporate Mailing: P,O. Box gO00, ~lgore, TX 75~63~9000., 903/~64~0§5i - FAX g03/984-5914
NELAP.accredifed ~02008
i
APPENDIX B
DE03-155 TERRA-MAR
'pa doj. uoiua0
Io
(O~+g'D;$)6-8
(00+ ~ ~
-r
poo~t
poo~ II~ddoD
eu~9 qoo9
(00 + 6~'o~.c:)~-B¢
2
'P~l eulI.He8
q-S ~J°cl
~ (O~+S ~'o~S)£-B
pooa ileddoo
,' (O~;+O~'O~S)~--a
(00+9 £'o~-~;)'k-B
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
o 0 0
E
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 (St.49+25)~
CLIENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
.JOB NAME: Sewerllne Backfill (Bethel ReC.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: ~o~eTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDIT~ONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97
GROUND E~'VATION: B09.5~ JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA D~ULUNG METHOD(S): SoBcl A~ger
~ · ~ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No gmundwatm
~ ~ ~ '="m'~-~8 ~ ~ -~ ~: ~ GEOTEeHNICALDE~CRIPTION
~ 4' asphalt; 2' base material
ST
71
:.
Patton, Burke & Thompson Rgure - 3
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 (St.39+00)*
CLIENT:'City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerllne Backf'~l (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG T~pF-: CME-75
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11197
GROUND ELEVATION: 505.5~ JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILMNG METHOD(S): Sor~[ Auger
~ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
I-= ~ ~ ~ ~ncoullte~d during dril~ng.
4.B' asphalt: 4' base material
· FILL - CLAY, with sand. med'~um stiff to stiff, moist, dark
151 ~.0-2.0 ST P=I.0 ;21 104
brown end brown
· - light brown below 2'
$2 2.0-4.0 ST P--3.0 17 107 *· - w[th wood pleces at 2' to 4'
- S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=I.0 ·
prepared by HDR Englneer~g, inc. dated May 1995.
Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure - 4
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 (St.38+05)*
CUENT: City of Coppell · LOCATION: Coppell, Tex~s
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE.' CME-TS
DRILUNG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12il 1/97
GROUND ELEVATION: 505* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRJLUNG METHOD(S}: So~ Augm'
~ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
<~ "~ = ~ ~ ~ GEOTEC "NICAL DESCRIPTION
82 2.0'4.0 ST P=2.75
:.
Patton, Burke & Thompson
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 (St. 36+00)~
CMENT: city ef Coppe~ LOCATION: Coppeil. Texa~
JOB NAME: Sewerl'me Backfill Elethei Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-71B
DRILLJNG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97
GROUND ELEVATION: 503* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE I OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILUNG METHOD(S): SoW Auger
! · GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwmte~
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~untefed durlng drmlng.
~ 4' asphalt; 2' base material
FILL - CLAY, with Sand and scattered gravel, very ~t~f,
S1 1-0-2.0 ST P=2.75
· ·
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=3.5 18 107
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=3.5 16 101
prepared by HDR Engineering, In~. dated May 1995.
-15-
Patton, Burke & Thompson
F'qaure - 6
LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 (St. 30+30)*
CUENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: CoppelL Texa~
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal} RIG TYPE: CME-75
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Co~eTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphslt DATE DRILLED,' 12/11/97
GROUND ELEVATION: 505* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILUNG METHOD(S]: S°F,d Auger
· GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No grourtdwater
~ .~ = ~-a.. ~ '-' ~ ~ -~ 5 O EDTECHNICAL DF.S;CRIPTION
..... B 8.5' asphatt
prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. dated May 1995.
Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure -7
LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 (St.25+27)*
CLIENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppeli, Texas
JOB NAME: Sewerline Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-T5
DRILENG CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SUF~ACE CONDBON$: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12/11/97
GROUND ELEVATION: 506.15' JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILUNG METHOD(S): SoF~I Auger
~ GROUNDWATER iNFORMATiON: No smundwat~
$
- SAMPLE TYPE
~ ia ~=~ I~ ;=;:;:==~ ~ ~= -=~ ~ - ~ GEOTECHNICALDEE;CRIPTION
· FiLL - CLAY, w[tll s~nd, very stiff, dry to slightly moist, light
S1 1.0-2.0 !ST P=3.0 15 115 ·
S2 2.0-4.0 ST P=3.O ~ 15 114 ·
· SAND, ~JIty, fine grain, loose, moist, light brow~ and brown
- E - S3 4.O-6.0 ST 9 *·
,',~ -witfl ;:[ay deposits
SS 8.5-10.0 $8 N=2 9
· Elevation and station values obtained from the plan
prepared by HDR Engineering. lnG. date~ May 1995.
Patton, Burke & Thompson Figure - 8
LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 (St. 15+90}*
CLIENT: CRy ~f Coppell LOCATION: CoppelL Texas
JOB NAME: Sawed(ne Backfilt (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Ro¥'a{) RiG TYPE: CME-75
DRI~NG CONT~CTOR: ~reT~t LOGG~ BY: MC
SU~ACE CONDI~ONS: ~phMt DATE DRILLED: 12111~7
GROUND ~A~ON: 497.5' JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FI~D DATA ~B0~TORY DATA DRYING M~HOD(S):
~ GROUNDWATER INFOR~TION: No groundw~
~ ~ ........ o ~ = ~ GEOTECHNIC~ DESC~PTION
......
S1 0.5-2.0 ~ P=1.5 16 107 22
S2 2.0~.0 ~ P=I*O 18 109
:,
· ~ f~ous s~ins below 4'
- 5 - S3 4.0-6.0 ST P=3.0
-10
15-
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure
LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 (St. 11 +00)~
CUENT: City of Coppell LOCATION: Coppell, Texas
JOS NAME: Sowerl[ne Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grapevine Creek to Royal) RIG TYPE: CME-TB
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Asphalt DATE DRILLED: 12111/g7
GROUND ELEVATION: 501.4' JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
RELD DATA LABORATGR¥ DATA DI~LUNG METHOD(S)= SoFa[ Auge~
~ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: No groundwater
~ ~- ~ ~ enco~Jntered duling tiring.
~ ~ ==~0 -- ~ - ~ GEOTECHNIC~ DESC~P~ION
* R~ - S~D, ~iayey, ~ose, moist, brown ~d light bro~
S1 1.O-2.0 ST ==1.0 ~12 ·e
S2 2.0~-0 ST 12 26
* ~ ~av~ below 4'
p~ar~ by HDR Eng~e~g, Inc. ~ted ~y 1995.
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Fig=
LOG OF BORING NO. 8-9 (St.8+50)*
· CLIENT: City of Coppel] LOCATION: Coppell. Texas
JOB NAME: SeweRine Backfill (Bethel RcL-Grspevlne Creek to ~yat) ~G ~PE: CME-75
DRILMNG CO~CTOR: Core, est LOGG~ BY: MC
SU~ACE CONDI~ON~: Asph~t DATE DRIL~D: 12111 ~7
GROUND ~ATION: 496* JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FI~D DATA ~B0~TORY DATA DRI~NG M~OD(S): ~ A~g~
~ GR~ROWA~ INFOmArt: No gm~dwat~
~ ~ ~ encount~ dm~g dr~g.
~ ~ = E~= ~ ~ - ~ GEOTECHNIC~ DESCRIPTION
~ light brown
S2 2.0-3.5 SS Ns2 15
~ 4.0-5.5 ~ Ns2 17
:.
~ 5.5-7.0 SS Ns3 14
* El~t~n ~d stab[on values obi;ned ~m ~ p~
pr~ared by HDR Engina~g, In;. ~t~ May 1995.
-15--
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - l s
LOG OF BORING NO. B-10 (St.27 + 00)
CLIENT: C[ty of Coppell LOCATION: Coppe11, Texas
JOB NAME; Sewer{[ne Backfill (Bethel Rd.-Grepevtne Creek to Royal) RIG 'I-YPF_: CME-TE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CoreTest LOGGED BY: MC
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Concrete DATE DR!I! ;~: 12/11/97
GROUND ELEVATION: NA JOB NO.: 1345 PAGE 1 OF 1
FIE[.D DATA LABORATORY DATA DRIUJNG METHOD(S}: So~41Augex
· GROUNDWATER INFORMATt01~: Ne greundw~t~
· ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~counten~ du~'mg d~ng.
~ ¢ ~ ........ O . GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Figure - 1~-
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSI:FtCA-TION SYSTEM
SY~SOLS TYPICAL
MAJOR DIVISIONS GF:~J=H I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS
~ '~ ~ o 10 o WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL
GRAVEL > ~' '~ ~ * GW SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO
AND CLEAN ~,, c>,, <>~ ~' FINES
GRAVELLY GRAVELS ~ ? i? POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL
,. ~ '~. e P - SAND MiXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
SOILS FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
GRAINED ~ ~ GM S,LT M,XTURES
SOILS aORE THAN
OF cOARSE GRAVELS I~[ CLAY M XTURES
-'RACTION CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEL - SAND
q, ETAINED ON NO. WITH FINES .~, GC
4 SIEVE
,..*...;........ WELL-GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY
..-.-..,-,,.,.:,:. SW SANDS, LrTTLE OR NO FINES
MORE THAN 150% SAND
OF MATERIAL IS AND ,.-.-.
LARGER THAN NO. CLEAN SANDS ~.?-~.:
200 SIEVE SIZE SANDY ~ POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
~OR~ ~ S0% . i SM ~a~XTURES
OF COARSE ~ '
FRACTION SANDS WiTH ~ CLAy.=Y SANDS. SAND - CLAY
'ASSING ON'N0. 4
SIEVE FINES SC MIXTURES
LESS THAN CE PLASTK;~'Y', GRAVELLY CLAYS. ~J*,tDY
FINE AND 60 C:AYS, Sa. TY C:.AYS. ~ C~.AYS
GRAINED CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY
SOILS ~.' OL CLAYS OF ~OW PLASTICITY
11tlli iNORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS O"
MORE THAN 50%MN DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
NO. 200 SIEVE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
SIZE CLAYS GREATER THANCH pLASTICITY. FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
~//?~/~.~-~ ___ . HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
~ ~ HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
I ~ t , I IJ LIMESTONE
,~ SHALE
SANDSTONE
...... CHALK
Flours 13
Patton, Burke & Thompson
425
Patton, Burke & Thompson
] 0555 Newkirk Str~et
Suite 530
Dallaz, Tcr. a~ 75220
CURVE NUMBER C
MAXIMUM DRY DE ll ~1~.~ >
PCF
WEIC~T
95
Somple Description Composite
B-1 Jt6 13-7
Locofion
Coml~3ctionTes~Procedure /~,STI~I B 698
PBT 308 1345
25 30 35
UQUID UMIT %
GP. AVEL , %
SAND %
SILT AND CLAY ' %
CompactiOn
Test Results F~ ~
0.25 t (0.)
3+00 1 (03
6+75 1(0')
7+00 1 (1 .)
7+25 1 (2')
7+55 1(z)
8+O0 1 (0')
8+50 B-9, 4 (0 - 73
9+00 I (03
11+00 58.5 (0-103 · -
11~50 -. I (6.)
11+90
12+50 1 (-)
15+00 I (-)
15+25 1(1')
15+50 I (33 .
15+75 1 (5')
15+90 B-7, 4 (0 - B3
16+50 1 (4')
17+55 ~ (83
19+oo ~ (83
19+25 1 (2.)
19+50 I (4')
20,.o0 1 (83
20+50 1 (8')
21+00 1 (10`)
22+00 I (1')
22+25 I (33
22+50 1 (5.)
22+80 1
23+00 1 (8')
25+00
25+27 B-6, 5 (0 - 10~
27+00 I (03
27+50 1 (33
29+00 1 (13
29+25 1 (33
29+50 1 (4')
29+75 I (6.)
3o+00 3 (2', 4'. 73
30+30 15-5.6 (O - 12.)
31+00 I (10.)
31+O5 1 (8.)
31+10 I (63
31+15 1 (43
31+2o I (23
33+75 3 (1', 3', 5')
34+5o . ' 1
36+00 B-4, 4 (0 - 83 4 ~*. 2', 4', 63
37+50 1 (03*
38+05 B-3.4 (o - 83
39+00 B-2.4 (0 - 93 4 (0',* 1', 3', 53
40+50 1
43+00 3 (1'~ 3'~ 5~
- Subgrade tests only ( not specifically for the backfill)
:. Summary of Samples
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal lane)
Job No. 1345 Coppell, Texas
Fieure '15
Patton, Burke & Thompson
43+50 2 (0'*. 3-)
44+50 1 (S~
45+00
45+50 1 (83
46+00 4
46+50 I (03
48+00 1 (03*
49+25 B-l, 4 (0 - 8~ I (2')
49+50 2 (0'*. 4')
49+75 1 (63
50+00 4 (2', 4'. 6',
51+00 1 (03*
52+50 1 (03*
53+00 4 (1', 3'. 5', 7")
53+t7 3 (3', 5', 7~
54+00 1 (03*
58+05 1 (23
58+12 1 (33
58+17 I (53
58+20 I (7)
56+30 1 (93
58+50 5 (2'. 4'. 6', 8'. 103
62+00 I (13
62+ 15 I (33
62+30 1 (53
62+35 I (7)
63+00' 4
63+40 1 (23
63+50 I (43
63+75 I (63
64+00 I (8)
69+00 4 (1'. 3'. 5', 7~
73+00
* - subgrade tests only ( not'specifically for the backfill)
Job No. t345
patton~ Burke & Thompson
Summary of Samples
Sewerline Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
r Coppell, Texas
Figure 15
82-04-19cj8 04:14P~ FRDhl PRTTON, BURKE & THOMPSON TO 9723[04~3b-"70 P.ID2
EWI's PROCTORS
PBT MOD OMC sAMPLE DATE STATION (depth)
DESIGNATION (~a~ (t,,~) DESCRIPTION
A 116.7 11.4 Jlight brown c~ayey SAND 1/16196 0*25, 3+~0,
1/23/96 6+75 (0'), 7e-O0 (1')
~ 15.+25 (1"). 15+50 (3'). 16+50 (4'), 17+50 (6'), 19+00 (8
B 116.7 14.8 tight brown and light 3/6/9~ 6.3+00 (1', $'. 5')
gray sandy CLAY 3114/96 36+00 (0'), 37+50 (0'), 39+00 (03, 40+50 (0'), 43+50 (0
49+50 (0'), 69+00 (1'. 3', 5', 7~
5/28/96 63+40 (2'), 63+50 (4'), 63+75 (6'), 64+00 (8)
C 116.3 13.6 brown sandy CLAY 1/25/96 8+00 (0')
2/6t96 15+75(53
2/12/9~ 22.-00 (1~), 22+25 (3'), 22+50 (5'), 22.+80 (73.23+00 (8
~/20/96 27+00 (03, 27+50 (3')
2/27/~ 3t+00 (10'), 31+05 (8"), 31+10 (6'), 31+15 (4'). 21+20 (
D 114.4 6_6 light ~own and tan 1/23/96 6*75 (0'), 7+00 (13
SAND 1/25/{)6 8+00 (0')
1/30/96 12.50 (-). 15+00 (-)
E 104.1 20_2 lightgmyanclbrown 2'7/96
CLAY Z,'29/96 33+75 (1 ', 3', 5~)
3/4/96 36+00 (2', 4',
3/12.'~6 58+50 (2'. 4'. 6'. 8', 10')
,~/'~ 25*00 (2', 47, 30+00 (2'. 4')
5/17/~6 43+50 (3'). 44+50 (5'). 45+50 (83
;/23/96 58+20 (7')
F 111.5 16.6 da~ brown sandy CLAY j2/22/~$ 29+00 (1'), 29+25 (3'), 29+50 (4'). 29+75 (6'), 30+00 (7
3/5/96 139+00 (1', 3', 5")
3/6/96 43+00 (1'. 3', 5')
3/7/96 46+00 (2', 4', 6')
3/11/96 50+00 (2', 4'. 6', 8'). 53+00 (1'. 3', 5'. 7')
3/14/96 34+560 (0"). 45+0~ (0"), 46+50 (0'), 4B+00 (0~. 52+50
54+00 (0')
5/23/95 58+05 (2'), 58*12 (3'), 58+17 (5'). 5~+30
5~'24196 62+00 (1'), 62+15 (33, 62+35 (73
G 101.4 24.8 dark I~rown CLAY 3/13/9~ 63*00 (2', 4'. 6'. 8")
5/20/96 49*25 (2'), 49+50 (4'), 49+75 (83,
5/24/96 s2+30 (5~
SUM~U, RY OF EWt PRoc'rbR~
Sewerlirm Bacilli
* Bethel Road (~-'rapevifte Creek - Royal Lane)
No. 134~ Coppell~ Texas
Thompson
TOTI:~- P, 02
~120
~,110
105
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Optimum Water Content (%)
A oB ·C vD eE oF ~G
NOTE:
D - pdmaHl¥ 'sand"
A, B, C, F AND PBT - pdmadly 'sandy clays'
E and G - prima~ly "clays'
Job No. 1345
Pa~ton, Burke & Thompson
Plot of EWI and PBT's Proctor Values
Sewedine Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figure 17
-2
-10
-12
90
a.) PBT test results
0
-2
-8
-10
b.) E'WI test results
Job No. 1345
paf~on, Burke & Thompson
95 100 105 110 115 120
Dry Density (pcf)
I m B-1 c~ B-2 · B.3 = B-4 e B-5 o 5-6 ,~ ~-71
100 105 110
Dry Density (pcf)
1t5 · 120
Depth versus Dry Density
Sewedine Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal lane}
Coppell, Texas
Figure
-2
.10
-12
l $ 20 25 30 35
Water Content (%)
I,, a-I ;3 B-2 · B-3 v 8-4 · B-5 o B-6 · B-7 ,~ B-6 ~- ~-9]
a.) PBT test resuJts
-2
-10
b.) EWI test results
5 10 15 20 25 30
EWI'S Water Content (%)
Job No. 1345
Patton, Burke & Thompson
Depth versus Water Content
Sewerline Backfill
3ethel Road (Grapevine Creek ~ Royal Lane)
Coppell, Texas
Figu
-10
85
90 95
ioo
Percent Compaction (%)
I= B-I o B:2 · 5-3 v B-4 ~, 5--5 o B-6 ~ B-71
a.) PBT test results, using EWI'S Proctor values
0
-2
-10 ,
85 90
95 100 105
EWI's Percent Compaction (%)
b.) EWI test results
Job No. 1345
Patton, Burke & Thompson
~ Depth verSUS Percent Compaction
T
Sewedine Backfill
Bethel Road (Grapevine Creek - Royal Lane)
Coppell. Texas
Figu
Come,son
Ill
Site Comparison of pBT ~cl EWI test results
., PBT "
Station depth wate~ density
{PC9
15+90 1 16 107
(B-~ 3 18 1~
6 15 1~
92.5
25+27 I 15 115 g9 9~,5
(E-6) 3 15 114 aa
30+30 ~_~ t8 103 92
i 22 107 96 92.7
~- 22 97 87
19 110 9~.7
IV ~ 36e00 2 18 107 103 100
(B-4) 4 16 101 aT
V ~C- 39+00 1 21 104 93 94.5
(S-2~ 3 17 107 96
V1 ~-,"3 49+25 1 18 107 96 94.2
LT', (B~$) 7 20 103 9?-4
3 13.1 t12.8 S6.? 97.3
~+~ I 15.1 114~ ~.2 97.8
)~+~ I 16~ 1~.B ~.7
T 17~ 1~.9 ~ ~.7
9 18.1 1~.8
11 17.9 107.5 ~.7
~;+00 2 22 100.8 96.8. 97.3
4 21.5 101.9 97.9
~0 1 16.5 1(}6.2 97.1 97.7
3 t7.7 109.5 98.2
0+00 1 17 108.2 97 96.4
7 18 t0~.5 95.8
o
· 90
80
II !11 IV V VI
Comparison Area
.I' PBT° EWII
Site comparison Areas ~
Sew~rllrm Backrdl
BeUtel Road (Grapevine Greek to Royal ~e}
~~Texas Figum 21
APPENDIX C
DE03-155 TERRA-MAR
TABLE 1C - TRAFFIC DATA FOR BETHEL AND COPPELL ROADS
I
THOROUGHFARE LOCATION DATE COUNT 24-HOUR
West of Coppell 4/18/01 E-W 7,584
Bethel Road Road
West of Coppell 4/05/00 E-W 7,461
Bethel Road Road,i !:
I
West of Denton 04/05/00 E-W 3,540
Bethel Road Tap Road
I
Coppell Road NorthBoulevardOf Parkway 07/09/01 N-S I 2,689
South of Minyard 07/11/01 N-S 4,442
Coppell Road Drive
Ruby Road to
10/26/00 N-S 5,325
Coppell Road Sandy Lake Road
Bethel Road to 09/05/02 N-S 2,280
Coppell Road Southwestern Road
FIGURE
Bethel and Coppell Roads TRAFFIC DATA
_,~.TERRA-MAR Coppell, Texas
(972) 488-8800 RKS NOV, 20, 2003 NA DE03-155
THOROUGHFARE LOCATION DATE COUNT 24-HOUR
West of Coppell 4/18/01 E-W 7,584
Bethel Road Road
West of Coppell 4/05/00 E-W 7,461
Bethel Road Road
West of Denton 04/05/00 E-W 3,540
Bethel Road Tap Road
North of Parkway 07/09/01 N-S 2,689
Coppell Road Boulevard
South of Minyard 07/11/01 N-S 4,442
Coppell Road Drive
Ruby Road to
10/26/00 N-S 5,325
Coppell Road Sandy Lake Road
Bethel Road to 09/05/02 N-S 2,280
Coppell Road Southwestern Road