Loading...
SS9402C-LR 980730Compaction Test Report Patton, Burke & Thompson 10555 Newkirk Street Suite 530 Dallas, Texas 75220 CLIENT: CITY OF COPPELL 225 PARKWAY BLVD. P. O. BOX 478 COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 DATE: 07/30198 JOB NO ] 532 SUBJECT BETHEL ROAD SEWER LINE BACKFILL REPAIRS COPPELL, TEXAS CEMENT TREATED BASE COURSE PREPARATION LABORATORY FIELD ~.AVIN~ SUBG _P~,,~E AT CURVE NO. 10 201 STA. 10+50 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 119.2 14.2 100+JoB'hiOii539 STA. ll+5O CURVE NO. l0 202 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 117.8 14.3 99 JOBNO. 1532 ~TA. 12+50 CURVE NO. 10 203 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 117.4 13.6 99 JOBNO. 1532 S?A, !3+50 CURVE NO. 10 204 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 115.1 14.3 97 JOBNO. 1532 STAre 14+50 CURVE NO. 10 205 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 115.8 14.7 98 JOBNO. 1532 STA. 15+50 CURVE NO. 10 206 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 120.6 13.3 lOO+JOBNO, 1532 ;TA. 16+75 C_uRVE NO. 10 207 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 118.1 14.0 100 JOBNO. 1532 iTA~ 26+00 CURVE NO. 10 208 0.0 NUC 118.5 13.0 119.4 13.7 IO0+JOBNOi-i~3~ 1 BELOW GRADE SP~-ClFICATIONS: 95_ %OFM~XlMUM ASTM D678 MOISTURE WITHIN % ©E OPTIMUM 1YPE OF COMPACTION EQUIPMENT AND NO OF UNITS: CASE 752B[1], INGERSOL:RAND SH~EPSFOOT [1] PNEUMATIC ROLLER (1] MOISTURE ADDED BY - THICKNESS OF LIFT ~ ~NCHES 1YPE OF EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT AND NO OF UNITS JD 544E LOADER []), JD 670 BLADE [!], 16B F!AT:ALLIS SPREADER THIS REPORT PRESENTS OPINIONS FORM ED AS A RESULT OF OUR OBSERVATION OF FILL PEACEM E N~ AS WE LL AS TH E TESTS SHOWN ABOVE. WE HAVE RELIED UPON THE CONTRACTOR TO APPLY THE NECESSARY COMPACT~VE EFFORT AND MOISTURE TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED COMPACTION DURING TIMES WHEN OUR OBSERVER IS NOT PRESENT AND AT LOCATIONS O1HE R THAN THOSE TESTED TEST DATA ARE NOT THE SOLE BASIS FOR OPINIONS ON WHETH E R THE FILL MEETS PROGRESS REPORT AS REQUESTED, PBT MADE A SITE VISIT TO OBSERVE AND TEST THE CTB PLACED IN BETHEL ROAD. A 5.5% CEMENT CTB MIX WAS PLACED AND ROLLED UNTIL A MINIMUM OF 95% DENSITY WAS OBTAINED. AT APPROXIMATELY STA. 28+00 TXI INFORMED THE PBT TECHNICIAN THAT THE MATERIAL HAD CHANGED. SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE A PROCTOR FOR THIS MATERIAL WE USED A MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY VALUE OF 125 PCF AT AN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF 10%. THIS VALUE WAS PROVIDED BY 1XI BASED UPON OTHER PROJECTS. 207. ~ ~N~~R~P~N~~N~F~LL~~MPA~T~~ND~E~N~TME~TSPE~~F~CA~~~N~AS~ND~~ATEDBY~~R~BSERVAT~~NSANDTE~TN~~ ~.1l~.' ~ ~. ............................ :.,:.& AND SHOULD BE REWORKED ~- R J HAMMERBER"' · ___, ou... y ROBERT C,DYGERT ~"'"~'~~~'0_' ~C~''~ 208 Compaction Test Report Patton, Burke & Thompson 10555 Newkirk Street Suite 530 Dallas, Texas 75220 CLIENT: CI1Y OF COPPELL 225 PARKWAY BLVD. P. O. BOX 478 COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 DArE 07/30/98 JOB NO~ 1.~32 REPORE NO 34 SHEET 2 OF 2 SUBJECT BETHEL ROAD SEWER LINE BACKFILL REPAIRS COPPELL, TEXAS CEMENT TREATED BASE OBSERVATION LABORATORY FIELD TEST DEPTH TEST MAX OMC DRY MC , COM- NO. LOCATION FEET TYPE DENSITY % DENSITY % iFACTION SOIL TYPE >AVING ~S_LJBGRADE AT CURVE NO. 35 209 iTA. 28+00 0.0 qUC 125.0 10.0 119.6 14.6 96 JOB NO. 1532 ;TA~ ~9-20 CURVE ..... NO. 35 210 0.0 NUC 125.0 10.0 119.8 13.6 96 JOBNO. 1532 ;~A. 30+2~]. CURVE NO. 35 211 0.0 qUC 125.0 10.O 120.6 12.9 96 JOBNO.1532 ITA. 31 +20 ~URVE NO. 3~5 212 0.0 NUC 125.0 10.0 119.5 13.9 96 JOBNO. 1532 ITA. 3.2+20 _. CURVE NO. :~13 0.0 qUC 125.0 10.0 123.9 12.1 99 JOB NO.1532 TA 33+50 CURVE NQ;35 ~'14 0.0 NUC 125.0 10.0 120.7 14.0 97 JOB NO.1532 T_~A_34+50 CURVE N~: 35 215 0.0 NUC 125.0 10.0 119.1 13.7 95 JOBNO. 1532 1 BELOW GRADE 2 PROCTOR VALUE SUPPLIED BY SPECIFICATIONS; 9~ % OEMAXIMUM ASTM D 698 MOISTURE WITHIN % OF OPTIMUM TYPE OF COMPACTION EQU~PME NI AND NO CE UNITS: CASE 752B (]1, INGERSOLL RAND 5HEI:P~E~QT [!] I~NEUMATIC ROLLER (1 ] MOISTURE ADDED BY THICKNESS OF LIFT ~ INCHES I~PE OF EAR I1-t MOVING EQUIPMENT AND NO OF UNITS 16B EIAT,ALLIS JERSEY.SPREADER [1], JD 544E [1], JD 670B BLADE [1] THiS REPORT PRESENTS OPINIONS FORMED/~ A RESULT OF OUR OBSERVATION OF FILL PLACE ME NT, AS WELL A~S THE TESTS SHOWN ABOVE. WE HAVE RELIED UPON THE CONTRACTOR TO APPEY THE NEC ESSARY COMPACTIVE EFFORT AND MOISTURE TO ACHIEVE SPECIEIED COMPACTION DURING TIMES WHEN OUR OBSERVER IS NOT PRESENT, AND AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE TESTED TEST DATA ARE NOT THE SOLE BASIS FOR OPINIONS ON WHETHER THE FILL MEETS SPECIFICATIONS PROGRESS REPORT (SEE SHEET 1 OF REPORT NO. 34). 21 4, 2 1 5 IN OU~ OPINIO~ FILL COM~CTION DOES NOT ME~ SPECIFICATIONS ~ INDICATED BY OUR OBSE~TIONS AND TEST N~ Z - ROBERT C.DYGERT ~ ~ , BF