St Ann Catholic-SY060711GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED ADDITION -ST. ANN CATHOLIC PARISH
180 SAMUEL BOULEVARD
COPPELL, TEXAS
TERRACON PROJECT NO. 94065223
July 11, 2006
Prepared for.
St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
I rerracon
Consulting Engineers 3 Scientists
July 11, 2006
St. Ann Catholic Parish
180 Samuel Boulevard
Coppell, Texas 75019
Attn Ms Jennifer Lindsey
RE Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
180 Samuel Boulevard
Coppell. Texas
Terracon Report No 94065223
Dear Ms Lindsey*
Terracon Consultants. Inc
8901 Carpenter Freeway, Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75241
Phone 214 630 1010
Fax 214 630 707r1
www terracon c.om
In accordance with your authorization, Terracon has completed its geotechnical engineering
report at the above referenced site This work was accomplished following the general scope
outlined in Terracon's proposal number P06940934 dated June 6, 2006 The results are
presented in the attached report.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions We stand ready to assist during
the design and construction phases of the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services.
Sincerely,
1rC acon
l
OF
Hanh ran Vasudevan, •�.f'
P
.a R_ BAR
R4h B Barnes; Jr
Principal
cc* PSP /Cliff Lloyd
Uelivering Success fui Clients and ErnPluyeea Since 1965
More Than 70 Offices Nationwide
llrerracon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
Figures
Boring Location Diagram . 1
Logs of Boring 2-5
General Notes (Key to Boring Logs) 6
Unified Soil Classification System 7
Page
Letter of Transmittal
i
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................
..............................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................. ...............................
....... ..............................1
SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES .......................................................
..............................1
Field Exploration
1
Laboratory Testing
2
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS ...................................................................
..............................2
Site Conditions
2
Soil Conditions
3
Groundwater Conditions
3
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................
..............................3
Geotechnical Considerations
3
Foundation Systems
4
Spread Footings Allowable Net Bearing Pressures
4
Spread Footing — Construction Considerations
4
Seismic Considerations
5
Floor Slabs
5
Earthwork
5
Area Drainage
5
Site Grading
6
Utilities
6
Area Paving
6
Pavement Subgrade Treatment
6
Pavement Sections
7
Preventative Maintenance
8
GENERALCOMMENTS ...............................................................................
..............................8
APPENDIX
Figures
Boring Location Diagram . 1
Logs of Boring 2-5
General Notes (Key to Boring Logs) 6
Unified Soil Classification System 7
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED ADDITION -ST. ANN CATHOLIC PARISH
180 SAMUEL BOULEVARD
COPPELL, TEXAS
TERRACON PROJECT NO. 94065223
July 11, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Terracon has completed the geotechnical engineering report for the proposed addition to the
St. Ann Catholic Parish located in Coppell, Texas Our scope of services included drilling and
sampling 4 borings, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses for building foundations,
building floor slabs, and pavements This report describes the subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings, and provides recommendations regarding the geotechnical design
and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements In addition, general earthwork
recommendations are provided
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed construction consists of additions on the north side of the existing facilities at the
northeast quadrant of Samuel Boulevard and Sandy Lake Road Column loads are assumed to
be 50 kips or less Finished floor elevations are not known at this time We assume that
finished floor elevations will be ±2 feet of existing grades.
SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Field Exploration
Four borings were drilled on June 29, 2006 at the approximate locations shown on the Boring
Location Diagram, Figure 1, in the Appendix. The boring locations were established by
measuring from available reference features and estimating right angles The boring locations
should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods employed to
determine them.
The borings were drilled using a truck - mounted drill rig Continuous - flight augers were used to
advance the borings. Cohesive soils were sampled by hydraulically pushing a thin - walled,
seamless steel tube into the soil. Sands were sampled during performance of the Standard
Penetration Test. The samples were extruded, tagged for identification, sealed to reduce
moisture loss, and taken to the laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification
Field logs of the borings were prepared by the drill crew The logs included visual
classifications of the materials encountered as well as interpretation of the subsurface
conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's
1
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
1rerracon
interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory evaluation of the
samples Logs of the borings are presented on Figures 2 through 5 in the Appendix. A key to
log terms and symbols is presented on Figure 6
Laboratory Testing
The Logs of Boring and samples were reviewed by a geotechnical engineer who selected
samples for testing. Tests were performed by technicians working under the direction of the
engineer A brief description of the tests performed follows.
Liquid and Plastic Limit tests were performed on selected soil samples These tests were used
in conjunction with moisture content measurements to aid in classifying the soils in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) The USCS is summarized on Figure 7 in
the Appendix. These tests were also used for evaluating soil volume change potential
Absorption swell tests were performed on three samples of the cohesive soils to evaluate swell
potential at in -situ moisture levels Unconfined compression and hand penetrometer tests were
performed on samples of the cohesive soils to evaluate the consistency and strength of these
materials
Results of the swell tests are presented in Table 1 The results of the other laboratory tests are
presented on the Logs of Boring in the Appendix.
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF SWELL TESTS
Boring
No.
Depth
(feet)
Liquid
Limit
°
PI
Surcharge
(psi
Initial
Moisture
Final
Moisture
°
Swell
N
B -1
2 -4
29
11
400
150
168
0.5
B -3
7 -8
32
15
950
161
180
0
B -4
3 -4
36
17
450
197
22.2
0.9
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site Conditions
The site for the proposed addition is located at 180 Samuel Boulevard, Coppell, Texas Existing
buildings and parking lots are present at the site
2
Geotechnical Engineering Report Nerracon
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
Soil Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are depicted on the Logs of
Boring Descriptions of each layer with its approximate depth and thickness are shown on the
boring logs The layer depths are referenced from the ground surface present at the time of
drilling Layer boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in
soil types, in -situ, the transition between materials may be gradual A brief discussion of the
stratigraphy indicated by the exploration program is presented below
Concrete was present from the surface to depths ranging from 6 to 8 inches in the borings
Tan, brown, and orange silty and sandy clays were encountered below the concrete in the
borings and extended to depths ranging from 6 to 8 feet. They had Liquid Limit (LL's) ranging
from 29 to 37 percent and Plasticity Index (PI's) ranging from 11 to 21 These clays classified
as CL by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) They were stiff to hard in consistency
Orange sands were present at depths ranging from 6 to 8 feet and extended to boring
termination depths of about 20 feet in the borings. In Boring 2, these sands contained gravel
below 18 feet. They were very dense based on the penetration tests.
Groundwater Conditions
The borings were advanced in the dry using auger drilling techniques which permits observation
of groundwater during drilling Seepage was observed at a depth of about 18 feet while
advancing Boring 2. Groundwater seepage was not observed in the other borings during drilling
and they remained dry at completion.
These observations represent only current groundwater conditions, and may not be indicative of
other times or at other locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal
conditions, landscape irrigation, and other factors.
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Geotechnical Considerations
The site soils are considered relatively stable with respect to moisture - induced volume changes
(expansion or contraction) Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, the proposed
structure can be supported on shallow spread footings. Individual or continuous footings should
bear on undisturbed or properly compacted soils as described in the Site Grading section of
this report.
3
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
Uerracon
Asphaltic concrete pavement or Portland cement concrete pavement can be used at this site
Portland cement concrete pavement is expected to require less maintenance.
Geotechnical recommendations for building foundation, floor slab subgrade preparation,
pavement, and earthwork are presented in the following report sections. The following
recommendations are based on finished floor elevations of t2 feet of existing grades. These
recommendations should be reviewed when the grading plan is available
Foundation Systems
Spread Footings Allowable Net Bearing Pressures
Individual or continuous footings should bear on undisturbed or properly compacted soils as
described in the Site Grading section of this report. Perimeter or exterior footings should be
situated a minimum of 3 feet below finished exterior grade Interior footings should be situated
a minimum of 2 feet below finished floor The final bearing elevation should be reviewed when
the final grading plan is available
Individual footings can be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf
Continuous footings can be proportioned using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf
Minimum widths of 3 and 1 5 feet are recommended for individual and continuous footings,
respectively
Elastic settlements of properly constructed footings could range up to 1 inch. Long term
differential movements of 1 /2 an inch should be considered between adjacent footings.
Spread Footing — Construction Considerations
Excavation of the footings, placement of steel and concrete, and backfilling should proceed in a
reasonably continuous manner Water should not be allowed to stand in the excavations and
the exposed soils should not be allowed to desiccate Sloughing of the soils in the area of the
footings is likely due to the low cohesion soils near the surface Complete installation of
individual footings or sections of continuous footings should be preferably accomplished in 48
hours
If the supporting soils in the bottom of the footing become disturbed, they will have to be
excavated The undercut can be backfilled with compacted soils as described in the Site
Grading section of this report, or with lean or footing strength concrete
Backfilling adjacent and over footings should proceed as soon as practical to minimize
disturbance to the bearing strata. Backfilling should be accomplished using on site or similar
4
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No 94065223
July 11, 2006
Verracon
soils All backfill should be uniformly compacted to the criteria presented in the Site Grading
section of this report.
Seismic Considerations
Based on the 2003 International Building Code, Table 1615 1 1 Site Class Definitions, the site
soils can be characterized as Site Class C Site Class C is described as dense soil or soft rock
for the top 100 feet of the site soil profile
Floor Slabs
The following recommendations should be reviewed when then the grading plan is available
The subsurface soils at this site are considered to be relatively active with respect to moisture
induced volume changes Slabs -on -grade may be placed directly on a properly prepared
subgrade, provided the subgrade is prepared as described in the Site Grading section of this
report. Potential movements for lightly loaded floor slabs placed on -grade at this site are
estimated to be about 1 inch
A vapor retarder should be used beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with
wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will
support equipment sensitive to moisture When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder,
the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 for procedures and cautions
regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder
Earthwork
Area Drainage
All grades must be adjusted to provide positive drainage away from the structure Water
permitted to pond near or adjacent to the perimeter of the structure can result in soil
movements that exceed those discussed in this report. Open ground should preferably be
sloped at a minimum of 5 percent grade 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building
Flatwork and pavement will be subject to post construction movement. Maximum grades
practical should be used for paving and flatwork to prevent areas where water can pond. In
addition, allowances in final grades should take into consideration post- construction movement
of flatwork, particularly if such movement would be critical. Where paving or flatwork abuts the
structure, the pavement should be sloped down away from the building and joints properly
sealed and maintained to prevent the infiltration of surface water
5
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
lrerracon
Planters located adjacent to the structure should preferably be self - contained or at least
designed to drain Sprinkler mains should be located a minimum of 5 feet away from the
building line. If heads must be located adjacent to the structure, then service lines off the main
should be provided. Roof drains should discharge on pavement or be extended away from the
structure
Site Grading
The onsite soils are suitable for use in site grading. Imported fill material should be clean sandy
clay to clayey sand select fill with a Liquid Limit less than 35 percent and a Plasticity Index (PI)
preferably between 6 and 15
The subgrade in areas to be filled should be stripped of debris, vegetation and any major root
systems. It should then be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and uniformly compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D698 at or above the soil's optimum moisture as
determined by that test. The fill materials should then be spread in loose lifts, less than 9
inches thick and uniformly compacted to the same criteria If filling is suspended and the
subgrade becomes desiccated or rutted, it should be reworked prior to placement of a
subsequent lift.
Utilities
Care should be taken that utility trenches are not left open for extended periods, and they are
properly backfilled Backfilling should be accomplished with properly compacted and relatively
clean on -site soils, rather than granular materials.
Area Paving
Pavement Subgrade Treatment
Subgrade materials at this site are anticipated to consist of silty clays. The clay soils are
subject to loss in support value with the moisture increases, which occur beneath pavement
sections They react with hydrated lime, which serves to improve and maintain their support
value. Lime stabilization is recommended beneath flexible (asphalt) pavement sections. Rigid
(concrete) pavements may be placed on an unstabilized, properly compacted subgrade
Prior to stabilization or compaction, the subgrade should be prepared as described in the
Earthwork section of this report.
A minimum of 6 percent hydrated lime (TxDot, Item 264), by dry weight, should be used The
lime should be thoroughly mixed and blended with the top 6 inches of the subgrade (TxDOT,
FV
Geotechnical Engineering Report Nerracon
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
Item 260) Stabilization should extend a minimum of one foot beyond the edge of the
pavement.
The lime stabilized or natural subgrade should then be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95
percent of ASTM D698 between -1 to +3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content
determined by that test. It should then be protected and maintained in a moist condition until
the pavement is placed Pavement subgrades should be graded to prevent ponding and
infiltration of excessive moisture on or adjacent to the pavement subgrade surface
Pavement Sections
Both asphalt and concrete pavement sections are presented below They are not considered
equal. Over the life of the pavement, concrete sections would be expected to require less
maintenance
Five inches of asphaltic concrete is typically adequate in parking lots serving only automobile
traffic. The section should consist of a two -inch surface course similar to TxDOT Type D and a
base course similar to Type B The coarse aggregate in the surface course should be crushed
limestone rather than gravel
Portland cement concrete is recommended in areas subject to truck traffic and is suitable for
parking lot pavement. Five inches of concrete is recommended for automobile parking lots. A
minimum of six inches of concrete, depending on traffic mix and volume, should be used in
areas subject to truck traffic. Dumpster trash pick up aprons should be a minimum of 7 inches
thick.
The concrete should have a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 3,000 psi in automobile
lots and 3,500 psi in Medium Duty Traffic areas. It should contain a minimum of 6 t1 5 percent
entrained air As a minimum, the section should be reinforced with No. 3 bars on 18 -inch
centers in both directions. All pavement joints should be sealed
The pavement will be subject to some movement. Flat grades should be avoided with positive
drainage provided away from the pavement edges. Backfilling of curbs should be
accomplished as soon as practical to prevent ponding of water
The minimum pavement sections outlined above were determined based on the post -
construction traffic loading conditions for this type of development. These pavement sections
do not account for heavy construction traffic during the early stages of the development. A
partially constructed structural section may be subjected to heavy construction traffic that can
result in pavement deterioration and premature failure. Our experience indicates that this
7
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
llerracan
pavement construction practice can result in pavements that will not perform as intended
Considering this information, several alternatives are available to mitigate the impact of heavy
construction traffic on the pavement construction These include using thicker sections to
account for the construction traffic or by routing heavy construction traffic around paved streets.
This office should be contacted to discuss these alternatives.
Openings in pavement, such as landscape islands, are sources for water infiltration into
surrounding pavements Water collects in the islands and migrates into the surrounding
subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement. This is especially applicable for
islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near - surface soils.
The civil design for the pavements with these conditions should include features to restrict or to
collect and discharge excess water from the islands. Examples of features are edge drains
connected to the storm water collection system or other suitable outlet and impermeable
barriers preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a depth below the
pavement structure
Preventative Maintenance
Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through and on -going pavement
management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative
maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve
the pavement investment.
Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e g. crack and joint sealing
and patching) and global maintenance (e.g surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is
usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and
provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any
maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and
extent of preventative maintenance
GENERAL COMMENTS
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical
recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide
testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation, and construction phases of the
project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in
this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic Parish
Coppell, Texas
Terracon Report No. 94065223
July 11, 2006
lkwacon
site, or due to the modifying effects of weather The nature and extent of such variations may
not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be
immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be
provided
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e g , mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification
or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about
the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.
E
APPENDIX
_M1. �
C)
Q
W
J
O
J
W
Q
V)
O
" ^ 1 N
- -- -- - - - - - -- -- -
J '
t I
I I B -1 B -2 B -3 _..— B-4
I I
I � I
I �
I �
EXISTING
' BUILDING
I �
I \
I
I
W
TO SANDY LAKE ROAD o no ao III I
APPROXIMATE SCALF
NOTE: BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
Iklo=
Project No.. 9406s221
BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM
PROPOSED ADDITION -ST ANN CATHOLIC PARISH
180 SAMUEL BOULEVARD
COPPELL, TEXAS
FIGURE 1
LOG OF BORING NO. B -1
CLIENT St. Ann Catholic Parish
[ BORING
PROJECT Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic
Coppell, Texas
Parish
See Figure 1
SITE 180 Samuel Boulevard
LOCATION:
Coppell Texas
SAMPLES
TESTS
a
U
o
Z Q LL
LL
a
X
W
LL
;e
z_
o
DESCRIPTION
H
w
O
F-
U
w 2
>"
W
a
g
° o
>
=
(n
LL
}
F"?
Q
of
W�
�Z
0W
Z
W
7
V
paz
t
W0
XZ
W
�
W
p
F
fn
zW
CL
c�
Approx. Surface Elevation: NIA ft
w
o
C)
7
a
a0
U) m
¢w
U a
w0
W,
00
20
o
a
g
a
Fn
O�
(D
LL
a o
s 6" co ncrete
LEAN SILTY CLAY
CL
ST
3.25
15
Brown, tan and orange
CL
ST
45+
15
118
29
11
61
53
CL
ST
35
5
6.0
SAND.
Orange
CF
4
12
'.'.'
SP
SS
88/12 0
10
CF
.'.'.
..
SP
SS
92112.0
15
CF
SP
SS
94/12.0
20.0
20
BH at 200'
STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS.
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES IN
SITU THE TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE
MORE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, FEET
lie rr on
DATE DRILLED
6/29/2006
PROJECT NUMBER
94065223
Page 1 of 1
s
FIGURE
Z
No seepag observed.
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 2
CLIENT St. Ann Catholic Parish
[ BORING
PROJECT Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic
Coppell, Texas
Parish
See Figure 1
SITE. 180 Samuel Boulevard
LOCATION:
Coppell, Tex
SAMPLES
TESTS
F
p
"
X
o
DESCRIPTION
w
m
F-
o v
2 I.-
w
o
>
W
~
?
°
o
> Y
U) x
U
LL
U)
2fn
�w
w
�_
J
U
itL
IrZ
a'
a
I
rn
w
O�
mw
J
Oo
wF
O
°
w
jw
aw
A rox. Surface Elevation: NIA ft
Pp
w
w>
a°
a W
W
��
00
2U
Ir
a
d
3
a
Z w
�<n
o I_
Ucn
a
U_
o
F
cnm
Ua
�
a a
0 8" concrete
LEAN SILTY CLAY
CL
ST
4.5
16
37
21
Brown, tan and orange
CL
ST
2.5
CL
ST
2.0
19
111
2.1
5.2
5
CL
ST
15
8.0
SAND,
CF
Orange
SP
SS
74/12.0
10
'•
CF
6
12
.'.'.
SP
SS
911120
15
CF
•'•••
18.0
_
SAND AND GRAVE
o
Orange
SG
SS
94!12.0
20.0
20
BH at 200'
STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN
SITU THE TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE
MORE GRADUAL,
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, FEET
DATE DRILLED
Page 1 of 1
s 18 WD
1k rr acon
6/29/2006
FIGURE
Y
PROJECT NUMBER
94065223
3
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 3
CLIENT St. Ann Catholic Parish
PROJECT Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic
Coppell, Texas
Parish
BORING See Figure 1
SITE. 180 Samuel Boulevard
LOCATION:
Coppell Texas
SAMPLES
TESTS
U
Z W
U
W
LL
Z
_j
a V)
X
a
o
w rn
En
a
DESCRIPTION
w
U
w M
r
„� °
° o
�_
En
u
LL
!n
�
��
>°
�W
W
J
U
46.
�Z
C
a
v
a
mz
O
�
5
g
Z>
2X
6
Approx. Surface Elevation: NIA ft
o
(n m
0 a
W
2 0
0
°
0 U
LL
d
0 7 8" concrete
01
LEAN SILTY CLAY
Brown, tan and orange
CL
ST
45+
CL
ST
4.5+
17
113
44
54
4.0
'
LEAN SANDY CLAY
•'�••
Brown, tan and orange
5
CL
ST
45+
�•
CL
ST
45+
CL
ST
2.25
16
108
32
15
.'
8.0
SAND ,
CF
H6O
Orange
13
SP
SS
67112.0
�' •'
10
CF
SP
SS
81112.0
�' •' •
15
.•.•
CF
SP
SS
84/12.0
.•..
20.0
20
B H. at 20 0'
STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS.
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES IN
SITU THE TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE
MORE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, FEET
DATE DRILLED
Page 1 of 1
FIGURE
s 1f
Ir erracm
1
6/29/2006
T
PROJECT NUMBER
94065223
4
No seepage observed.
LOG OF BORING NO. B- 4
CLIENT St. Ann Catholic Parish
PROJECT Proposed Addition -St. Ann Catholic
Coppell, Texas
Parish
BORING See Figure 1
SITE. 180 Samuel Boulevard
LOCATION:
Coppell Texas
SAMPLES
TESTS
I'_
U
~ o
p
Z u.
Igo
LL
d
X
W
LL
Z_
DESCRIPTION
w
J
X 0
w 2
r
W°
F
°
>Y
w x
'0
U
LL
}
�.Z
FW
1w
Wo
?Z
W
n
U
ito
�U'
W
CL
F
w
(n
w
w
a
a_j
¢w
oo
w�
y
00
a
v
g
�
?w
aw
O�
a
Approx. Surface Elevation* N/A ft
o
U) M
0 d
X
M 0
o
:3
a
2 05
U U)
LL
d 4
0 8" concrete
LEAN SILTY CLAY
CL
ST
a.5+
Brown, tan and orange
CL
ST
45+
CL
ST
2.75
20
101
36
17
4.0
LEAN SANDY CLAY
Brown, tan and orange
5
CL
ST
15
19
108
43
13
CL
ST
25
•••
•'•.•
8.0
SAND.
cF
Orange
SP
SS
82/12.0
.'.
10
'•
CF
7
20
SP
SS
94/12.0
15
,•
CF
:• :•:
SP
SS
87112.0
•'
20.0
20
B H at 200'
STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE REMARKS'
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES. IN
SITU, THE TRANSITION BETWEEN STRATA MAY BE
MORE GRADUAL.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, FEET
Ire rracon
1
DATE DRILLED
6129/2006
PROJECT NUMBER
94065223
Page 1 of 1
Q
-T
FIGURE
5
y
No seepage observed.
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SS.
Split Spoon -1 3 18" I.D., 2" O.D , unless otherwise noted
HS:
Hollow Stem Auger
ST
Thin - Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted
PA.
Power Auger
TC:
TxDOT Cone Penetrometer Test
HA.
Hand Auger
CF
Continuous Flight Auger
RB:
Rock Bit
BS.
Bulk Sample or Auger Sample
WB:
Wash Boring or Mud Rotary
The number of blows required to advance a standard 2 -inch O.D split -spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18 -inch
penetration with a 140 -pound hammer failing 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N- value' For TxDOT cone
penetrometer (TC) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches or penetration
in inches after 100 blows using a 170 -pound hammer falling 24 inches, reported as "blows per foot," or inches per 100 blows and is not
considered equivalent to the "Standard Penetration" or "N- value"
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL.
Water Level
WS.
While Sampling N /E. Not Encountered
WCI
Wet Cave in
WD
While Drilling
DCI
Dry Cave in
BCR:
Before Casing Removal
AB
After Boring
ACR:
After Casing Removal
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other
times and other locations across the site could vary In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater In
low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short -term observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have
more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine
Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are
plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non - plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be
added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse - grained soils are defined on the basis
of their in -place relative density and fine - grained soils on the basis of their consistency
CONSISTENCY OF FINE- GRAINED SOILS
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE - GRAINED SOILS
Standard
Standard
Unconfined Penetration or
Penetration or TxDOT Cone
Compressive
N -value (SS)
N -value (SS) Penetrometer (TC)
Strenath. 61u. psf
Blows /Ft.
Consistency
Blows/Ft. Blows /Ft. Relative Density
< 500
<2
Very Soft
0-3 0 -8 Very Loose
500 — 1,000
2 -3
Soft
4-9 8 -20 Loose
1,001 — 2,000
4 -6
Medium Stiff
10-29 20 -80 Medium Dense
2,001 — 4,000
7 -12
Stiff
30-49 80 to 57100 Dense
4,001 — 8,000
13 -26
Very Stiff
50+ 5 to 0100 Very Dense
8,000+
26+
Hard
RFLATAM PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY
Descriptive Terms)
of other
Percent of
Major Component
constituents
Dry Welaht
of 30mul e Particle Size
Trace
< 15
Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)
With
15-29
Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)
Modifier
> 30
Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4 75 mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4 75mm to 0.075mm)
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS
OF FINES
Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)
Descriptive Terms) of other
Percent of
PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
constituents
Dry Weioht
Term Plasticity Index
Trace
< 5
Non - plastic 0
With
5-12
Low 1 -10
Modifiers
> 12
Medium 11 -30
High 30+
I rer con
FIGURE 6
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests"
Soil Classification
"Based on the material passing the 3 -in. (75 -mm) sieve
e If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles
or boulders, or both" to group name.
c Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well- graded
gravel with silt, GW -GC well- graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly
graded gravel with sill, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay
° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well -graded
sand with silt, SW -SC well- graded sand with Gay, SP -SM poorly graded
sand with silt. SP -SC aoorly graded sand with clay
E CU = DWD10 Cc=
D10 x Dw
F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.
G If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM.
60
i 1
Group
soils and tine - grained traction
50
Symbol
Group Name
Coarse - Grained Soils
Gravels
Clean Gravels
Cu z 4 and 1 s Cc s 3
GW
Well- graded gravel'
More than 50% retained
More than 50% of coarse
Less than 5% fines`
Cu < 4 and /or 1 > Cc > 3E
GP
Poorly graded gravel`
on the No. 200 sieve
fraction retained on
No 4 sieve
Gravels with Fines
Fines classify as ML or MH
GM
Silty gravel`"
More than 12% fines`
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
Clayey gravelFO•"
v 20
Sands
Clean Sands
Cu Z 6 an 1 s C s 3E
SW
Well- graded sand'
a
50% or more of coarse
Less than 5% fines°
Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3
SP
Poorly graded sand'
4
fraction passes
No. 4 sieve
Sands with Fines
Fines classify as ML or MH
SM
Silty sand"'
0 10 16 20 30 40
More than 12% fines°
Fines Classify as CL or CH
SC
Clayey sandy"'
Fine - Grained Soils
Silts and Clays
inorganic
PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line'
CL
Lean clay""
50% or more passes the
Liquid limit less than 50
PI < 4 or plots below "A" line'
ML
Silt" m
No. 200 sieve
organic
Liquid l imit - dried
Organic clay" ""
< 0 75
Liquid limit - not dried
OL
Organic siIlK.LI
Silts and Clays
inorganic
PI plots on or above "A" line
CH
Fat clay"
Liquid limit 50 or more
PI lots below "A" line
MH
Elastic SiltK
organic
L iquid limit - oven dried < 0.75
OH
Organic clayKLM'
Liquid limit - not dried
Organic silt"•`
Highly organic soils
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
PT
Peat
"Based on the material passing the 3 -in. (75 -mm) sieve
e If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles
or boulders, or both" to group name.
c Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well- graded
gravel with silt, GW -GC well- graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly
graded gravel with sill, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay
° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well -graded
sand with silt, SW -SC well- graded sand with Gay, SP -SM poorly graded
sand with silt. SP -SC aoorly graded sand with clay
E CU = DWD10 Cc=
D10 x Dw
F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.
G If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM.
60
i 1
For classification of fine- grained
soils and tine - grained traction
50
of coarse - grained soils —
_
Equation of "A" line j
J ,1 •p
d
Horizontal at PI =4 to LL =25.5. �
1
40
_ then P1= 0.73(LL•20)
,f._... .... __:.._
W
a
Equation of "U" - line
�O+
G
Z
Vertical at LL =16 to PI =7, '
y 30
then P1 =0.9 (LL•6) { >'
— -- — - - - -- -
U
o f
v 20
g
MH or OH
a
10
4
ML or OL
0
.
0 10 16 20 30 40
50 60 70 so
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
"If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.
1 If soil contains ? 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.
If Alterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL -ML, silty clay
"If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with
gravel," whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains ? 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
"sandy" to group name.
M If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel.
add "gravelly" to group name.
"PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A' line.
0 PI < 4 or plots below "A" line.
P PI plots on or above "A" line.
PI plots below "A" line.
90 too 110
1 rerracon -
Form 711 FIGURE 7