Alex Canal-SY060210PROJECT NO. 12783
DECEMBER, 2005
1.10-4
ccuiv cf-ovi‘ &ace 4 I TS COL
Me)e at 0 Q LJ 1 I
1 ;,..t
nlv iec,J �t.
l e�5z a.evitk ef 4:5
(14\v -e- b/
...Ads.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CHANNEL SLOPE EVALUATION
ANDY BROWN EAST PARK
COPPELL, TEXAS
Presented To:
gwc engineering
DALLAS, TEXAS
GRQLJP
Project No. 12783
gwc engineering
Geico Office Building
4201 Spring Valley Road, Suite 1120
Dallas, Texas 75244
ATTN: Mr. Tom Johnston
Gentlemen:
December 29, 2005
Transmitted herewith are copies of the referenced report. Should you have any
questions concerning our findings or if you desire additional information, do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
REED ENGINEERING GROUP,'
Schreiner,
Projec, e
F. it ey Smith, P.G., P.E.
Vice President
BMS /FWS /apv
copies submitted: (4)
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CHANNEL SLOPE EVALUATION
ANDY BROWN EAST PARK
COPPELL, TEXAS
E O F TF
r9 s 1 11
MICHAEL SCHREINERO
4 2t 4•K
4,4 '1
1ktFS
4-
co..**
�r Ir
2424 STUTZ DRIVE, SUITE 400 DALLAS, TX 75235
tel 214. 350. 5600 far. 214.350.0019
www.reed- engineering.com
F. WHITNEY SMITH i
i
•off 85658
I., &'ON:L NZ
REED I EI IGIfIEERIf
GEOTECHNICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
GR UI
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
Project Description 1
Authorization 1
Purpose and Scope 1
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General 2
Field Investigation 2
Laboratory Testing 3
GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 4
Geology and Stratigraphy 4
Ground Water 5
ANALYSIS 6
Slope Stability Analysis 6
RECOMMENDATIONS 9
Slope/Retaining Wall Modifications 9
Retaining Wall Evaluation 10
Earthwork 11
Construction Observation 12
ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATE
PLAN OF BORINGS 1
BORING LOGS 2 -4
KEYS TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED 5 &6
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 7 -10
GLOBAL STABILITY RESULTS 11 -14
R E E I E I1"lE FEE RIr
G R Q LJP
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for a slope stability
evaluation along a section of the existing canal located south of Parkway Boulevard, west of its
Project Description
INTRODUCTION
intersection with Alex Drive in Coppell, Texas. The slope system consists of an existing slope
above an existing retaining wall adjacent to the channel Instability along the canal has been
observed in the form of erosion, wall distress and shallow global failures in the slope above.
Authorization
This investigation was authorized by Mr. Tom Johnston of GWC Engineering on November 18,
2005 pursuant to our revised Proposal No. 8 -80.
R EE t E I I nCB
R O LJ
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this investigation has been to evaluate the general subsurface conditions and to
recommend measures to stabilize the existing retaining wall/slope system. The investigation has
included drilling sample borings, performing laboratory testing, analyzing engineering and
geologic data and developing geotechnical recommendations. The following sections present
the methodology used in this investigation.
Recommendations provided herein are site specific and were developed for the project discussed
in the report Introduction. Persons using this report for other than the intended purpose do so
at their own risk.
Project No. 12783
1 December 29, 2005
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
R EEL? Ef I I IEERII lG
G RO LJ P
General
The field and laboratory investigations have been conducted in accordance with applicable
standards and procedures set forth in the 2005 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volumes
04.08 and 04.09, "Soil and Rock." These volumes should be consulted for information on
specific test procedures.
Field Investigation
Subsurface conditions were evaluated with three sample borings drilled near the crest of the
slope on November 7, 2005. Boring B -1 was drilled to a depth of 20 feet. Borings B -2 and B -3
were drilled to depths of 15 feet each. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on
Plate 1 of the report Illustrations.
Boring B -1 was advanced between sampling intervals by means of a truck mounted drilling rig
equipped with continuous flight augers. Borings B -2 and B -3 were drilled using portable hand-
held drilling and sampling equipment. Samples of cohesive soils were obtained with 3 -inch
diameter Shelby tubes (ASTM D- 1587). The unweathered shale in Boring B -1 was evaluated
in -situ using the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) cone penetrometer test.
Delayed water level observations were made in the open boreholes to evaluate ground water
conditions. Borings were backfilled at completion of field operations.
Sample depth, description of materials, field tests, water conditions and soil classification
[Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), ASTM D -2488] are presented on the Boring Logs,
Plates 2 through 4. Keys to terms and symbols used on the logs are included as Plates 5 and 6.
Project No. 12783 2 December 29, 2005
TABLE 1.
TESTS CONDUCTED AND ASTM DESIGNATIONS
Type of Test
ASTM Designation
Atterberg Limits
D -4318
Moisture Content
D -2216
Partial Gradation
D -1140
the pocket penetrometer readings are presented on the boring logs.
Project No. 12783
3
R EE 1 I E rlG I rl E E R Irl
December 29, 2005
G1=41=111_11=
Relative elevation surveys were conducted by GWC Engineering parallel to and along the crest
of the slope, and perpendicular to the crest, parallel to the slope itself. The three surveys
performed parallel to the slope were done so at the locations of the three sample borings. The
two critical sections considered for slope stability analysis are designated section A A' and
B B' and are shown on the Plan of Borings, Plate 1. Relative elevations shown on the logs
were taken from the GWC Engineering survey.
Laboratory Testing
All samples were returned to the laboratory and visually logged in accordance with the USCS.
The consistency of cohesive soils was evaluated by means of a pocket penetrometer. Results of
Laboratory tests were performed to evaluate index properties, confirm visual classification and
evaluate the undrained shear strength of selected samples. Tests and ASTM designations are
provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1.
TESTS CONDUCTED AND ASTM DESIGNATIONS
(Continued)
Type of Test
ASTM Designation
Soil Suction
D -5298
Direct Shear
D -3080
The results of these tests are summarized on Plates 7 through 10.
Project No. 12783
GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
EEL] E rl G I r EEE E RI
G RO LJ
Geology and Stratigraphy
The site is located within alluvial soils overlying the Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group. Subsurface
conditions encountered in the borings were consistent with anticipated site geology and
consisted of fill and alluvial soil over weathered and unweathered shale. Fill consisting of dark
brown to brown, moderate to high plasticity clay and silty clay (CL CH) with varying
quantities of limestone fragments, fine sand, and calcareous fragments was encountered to
depths of three to four feet.
The clay fill was underlain in Borings B -2 and B -3 by dark grayish -brown to gray and yellowish
brown alluvial clay (CH) and sandy clay (CL) with varying amounts of calcareous and ironstone
particles. The alluvial clays extended to depths of 13 -1/2 feet.
-4
December 29, 2005
boring was terminated within the unweathered shale.
REED E f G 1 fI E E R In ims
GROUP
Underlying the alluvial clays, and directly beneath the clay fill in Boring B -1, was olive -yellow
and light gray, slightly fissile to fissile clay (CH) with traces of calcareous nodules. The fissile
clay was encountered to depths of 14 feet, and through the 15 -foot termination depths of
Borings B -2 and B -3.
Below 14 feet in Boring B -1 was dark gray, soft (rock classification), unweathered shale. The
Ground Water
Ground water seepage was encountered during drilling in Boring B -2 only at a depth of nine feet
on November 7, 2005. Ground water was observed in that boring within two minutes of
completion of drilling at a depth of two feet. Ground water was noted in all three borings on
November 11, 2005 at depths of 2 to 5 -1/2 feet.
Based on the water level observations, it appears that a ground water table was present around
two to five feet below current ground surface at the boring locations. The ground water level
generally corresponded to the water level in the canal. The depth to ground water will fluctuate
with seasonal and yearly rainfall, as well as irrigation rates and water level in the canal. While
the water level in the canal is expected to rise during a flooding event, it is not expected to drop
significantly below normal pool.
Project No. 12783 5 December 29, 2005
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS
Material
Description
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction
Angle
(Degrees)
Building Surcharge
(Where Applicable)
250
N/A
N/A
Retaining Wall
150
5000
N/A
Clay FiII (CL)
125
0
21
Clay Fill (CH)
125
0
24
CH Clay
125
0
20
Sandy Clay
128
0
28
Weathered Shale
125
0
22
Unweathered Shale
135
0
90
"Hard Layer"
Slope Stability Analysis
Subsurface conditions for the analyses were interpreted based on the sample borings. The shale
was modeled as a "hard layer" below which global failure is not anticipated to occur. Values of
shear strength were evaluated using the direct shear test results as well as correlations between
physical soil properties such as the Atterberg Limit tests. Near- residual shear strengths were
used in consideration of long -term strain softening associated with shrink -swell cycles
anticipated in these materials. Input parameters used in the global analyses are presented in
Table 2 below.
Project No. 12783
ANALYSIS
-6
REEL] E rl G I rl E E R Irl G
December 29, 2005
G R O LJ P
TABLE 3.
SUMMARY OF WALL PROPERTIES
Wall
Location
Top of Wall
Elevation
(T.O.W.)
Bottom of Wall
Elevation
(B.O.W.)
Wall Thickness
(feet)
Height of
Retaining Wall
(feet)
Section A A'
99.92
95.74
1.0
4.18
Section B B'
99.97
95.54
1.0
4.43
Global stability analysis was performed at the two critical sections designated as Section A A'
and Section B B' on Plate 1.
R E E a E f G I I E E R I fl G
R O U
The basic wall configurations were provided by GWC Engineering. Wall sections were analyzed
considering a building surcharge imparted by the existing residential structures. Specific wall
dimensions used in the global analysis are provided in Table 3 below.
The global stability analyses were aided by the use of a computer program, GSLOPE, to allow
for rapid analysis of a large number of potential failure surfaces. The values above were used as
input and a search was performed for a "minimum" factor of safety for each wall section
analyzed. It should be noted that the factor of safety calculated may not be the absolute
minimum factor of safety for the retaining wall section. It is possible that a lower factor of
safety may exist which was not detected during the search.
Project No. 12783 7 December 29, 2005
REEL] E f I I fl E E R 11 G
E FR O U P
The factor of safety represents the ratio of the forces tending to resist rotational failure to the
forces tending to cause rotational failure. A factor of safety of one represents conditions of
incipient failure. A factor of safety of 1.5 against a global failure is generally considered
adequate depending upon the threat of injury and/or severity of property damage resulting from
such a failure.
The initial global analysis of the walls was performed based on the parameters and dimensions
summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Results of the analyses yielded minimum factors of safety
varying from approximately 1.11 to 1.37 at Section A A', and from 0.98 to 1.31 at Section
B B'. The results of the analyses indicate wall/slope geometry as currently constructed
exhibits a significant risk of global failure. This is consistent with conditions observed in the
field. Representative results of one analysis for each section are provided on Plates 11 and 12.
Global stability analyses were then performed to evaluate a maximum slope angle above the wall
to provide a minimum global factor of safety of 1.5. Based on the results of the analyses, a
slope of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1 V) will provide a global factor of safety of at least 1.5
for the upper slope. This will require an increase in the height of the current retaining wall on
the order of 1 feet. Given a current top of wall elevation very near Elev. 100.0, this
corresponds to a proposed top of wall elevation of Elev. 101.5.
Project No. 12783 8 December 29, 2005
R E E r3 E fl G I fl E E F7 I fl G
G FR O LJ P
In addition, the analyses indicate the base of the retaining wall should be extended an additional
2 -1/2 feet below the current bottom of wall elevation to provide a global factor of safety of at
least 1.5 for the wall/slope system. Given a current bottom of wall elevation at Elev. 95.5, this
corresponds to a proposed bottom of wall elevation of Elev. 93. Results of the global analyses
for each modified section are provided on Plates 13 and 14.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Slope/Retaining Wall Modifications
Based on the results of the global stability analyses above, it is recommended that the slope
above the wall be no steeper than 4H:1V. Using the GWC Engineering survey, this will require
increasing the top of wall elevation to at least 101.5 feet. Fill for slope construction should
consist of site excavated or similar soils, placed in accordance with the Earthwork section.
In addition, the base of the wall should be extended by at least 2 -1/2 feet below its current
elevation. Based on the GWC Engineering survey, the wall should be founded at or below Elev.
93 feet.
It should be noted that if the water level in the canal is lowered to accommodate construction,
rapid draw -down conditions will reduce the stability of the entire channel slopes. This could
lead to additional failures on both channel banks.
Project No. 12783 9 December 29, 2005
Retaining Wall Evaluation
Existing or new retaining walls can be evaluated using the geotechnical parameters provided in
the following paragraphs. The magnitude of lateral earth pressure against retaining walls will be
a function of
the type and compaction of backfill behind the walls within the "active" zone; and
the allowable rotation of the top of the wall.
The active zone can be approximated as the wedge of soil defined by the surface of the wall and
a plane inclined 38° from the vertical passing through the base of the wall.
Considering backfill using site excavated materials compacted in lifts to the density and moisture
outlined in the Earthwork section, the lateral earth pressures can be estimated based on an
equivalent fluid pressure of 57 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) "active" pressure and 78 pcf "at- rest"
pressure above ground water, and 90 pcf "active" pressure and 153 pcf "at- rest" pressure below
ground water. Values below ground water include hydrostatic pressure. Rotation, or lateral
movement of the top of the wall, equal to 0.02 times the height of the wall will be necessary for
on -site soil backfill for the "active" condition.
Alternatively, imported "select" fill may be used as backfill in the wedge of soil in the "active
zone" as defined above. Considering "select" fill compacted in lifts to the density and moisture
in the Earthwork section, lateral earth pressures can be estimated based on an equivalent fluid
pressure of 35 pcf "active" pressure or 55 pcf "at- rest" pressure above ground water, and 80 pcf
"active" pressure and 90 pcf "at- rest" pressure below ground water. Values below ground
Project No. 12783
A E E L7 E I G I i E E R I fl G
E A O LJ P
10 December 29, 2005
F.iEEL7 Ef 11""IE EF.4
G RQLJP
water include hydrostatic pressure. Lateral movement of the top of the wall equal to 0.001
times the height of the wall will be necessary for the "active" pressure condition for "select" fill
backfill.
Footings should be proportioned for a maximum bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square
foot (psf). Movement of the footings and walls should be anticipated. Softer, flexible walls are
recommended. Solid concrete walls should be battered into the soil to limit outward rotational
movement caused by differential footing movement.
Passive resistance on the downslope side of the walls should be neglected. A coefficient of
friction between the base of the footing and the underlying soil equal to 0.5 may be used.
The values above do not incorporate specific factors of safety. Factors of safety, if applicable,
should be integrated into the structural design of the wall.
Earthwork
All vegetation and topsoil containing organic material should be cleared and grubbed at the
beginning of earthwork construction. Excavated benches should be created to allow placement
of fill in horizontal lifts. Areas of the site that will underlie fill should be scarified to a depth of 6
inches and recompacted to a minimum of 92 percent and a maximum of 98 percent of the
maximum density, as determined by ASTM D -698, "Standard Proctor The moisture content
should range from optimum to +4 percentage points above optimum.
Site excavated soils should be placed in maximum eight -inch loose lifts and compacted to the
moisture and density requirements outlined above.
Project No. 12783
11 December 29, 2005
Construction Observation
It is recommended that a representative of this office be present during construction to observe
the construction procedures. Field density tests should be performed by a representative of this
office at a minimum rate of one test per 100 linear feet of slope in all fills
Project No. 12783
Ia EEE Er I I•IEERII""IG
G R O LJ I°
12 December 29, 2005
200'
E 1
GROUP
Channel Slope Evaluation
Project No. 12783 Andy Brown East Park
ate: 11 -09 -05 Coppell Texas on: See Plate 1
DEPTH,
feet
I DESCRIPTIVE
SYMBOLS
to
0_
a
CORE
DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
Pocket Penetrometer Readings
Tons Per
Standard Penetration Tests
Blows per Foot
ELEVATION
(feet)
'D3a 1
aoa I
1 1 2 3 4 4.5+ 4.5++
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
I
99.6
96.1
92.6
85.6
79.6
H
t0_
15
20
25-
30-
li
CLAY, dark brown gray, stiff to medium stff, w /calcareous particles
trace of ironstone fragments (Fill) (CL)
at
level
1(0
1( 0
131o4s
ol
3Ioas
1)
-11
1
-05
-1/2
1/2
inches
riche
f/
SILTY CLAY, gray brownish- yellow,
medium stiff, w /some fine sand
(Fill) (CL)
CLAY, olive yellow light gray, very
stiff, w /trace of calcareous particles
nodules, slightly fissile
(severely weathered shale) (CH)
SHALE, dark gray, soft, w /silt
laminations
Total Depth 20 feet
Water 3' after 2 minutes. Water 2'
blocked 6 -1/2' on 11 11 05.
BORING LOG B -1 PLATE 2
P-CATCenrvn•1 lVwn Y -r• UT!.
reed e
Channel Slope Evaluation
Project No. 12783 Andy Brown East Park
Coppell, Texas Location:
ate: 11 -07 -05
GROUP
See
Plate 1
DEPTH,
feet
DESCRIPTIVE I
SYMBOLS
SAMPLES 1
CORE
Pocket Penetrometer Readings
Tons Per Sq. Ft. —f
Standard Penetration Tests
Blows per Foot
VA TION
(feet)
'33U
008
DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
1 2 3 4 4.5+ 4.5++
b 20 30 40 50 60
0
10—
15
20-
25
30—
102.7
AI
Agl
CLAY, dark brown S brown, hard to very
stiff, w /trace of fine sand calcareous
particles (Fill) (CH)
1
water
Seem
I
?ve
e
I A
dur
P-11
n.
drlling.
-05
98.2
89.2
87.7
ir
0 00
00°
10
104"
SANDY CLAY, dark gray
yellowish— brown, stiff, w /trace of
calcareous nodules ironstone
particles (CL)
A
CLAY, olive yellow light gray, very
stiff, fissile
1 (severely weathered shale) (CH)
Total Depth 15 feet
Seepage encountered 9' during drilling.
Dry completion. Water 4 -1/2' blocked
8' on 11- 11 -05.
BORING LOG B -2
rI'nTrt
PLATE 3
SaJtrel MAIM TLNTQ
reed engineerin
GROUP
Channel Slope Evaluation
Project No. 12783 Andy Brown East Park
Coppell, Texas Location: See Plate 1
ate: 11 -07 -05
DEPTH,
feet
1 DESCRIPTIVE I
SYMBOLS
L SAMPLES
CORE
DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
Pocket Penetrometer Readings
Tons Per Sq. Ft.
Standard Penetration Tests
slows per Foot
ELEVATION
(feet)
'D3!!
Doa
1 2 3 4 4.5+ 4.5++
q 20 30 40 50 60
0
5
10
15
20
25-
30-
103.3
100.3
97.3
94.3
92.3
89.8
88.3
SANDY CLAY, brown dark brown,
hard, w /trace of limestone fragments
(Fill) (CL)
1
W ater
Iov€I
0
11
-11
-05
I
CLAY, dark grayish- brown, very stiff,
w /trace of calcareous particles
nodules ironstone particles (CH)
SANDY CLAY, dark grayish- brown, very
stiff, w /trace of calcareous particles
nodules (CL)
SANDY CLAY, gray brownish yellow,
very stiff, w /trace of ironstone
1 particles calcareous deposits
particles (CL)
r
SAND, brown, fine, w /trace of clay (SP)
CLAY, olive yellow light gray, hard,
fissile
(severely weathered shale) (CH)
Total Depth 15 feet
Dry completion. Water 5 -1/2' IS blocked
9 -1/2' on 11- 11 -05.
BORING LOG B -3 PLATE 4
rsriTcrukar _m rYwA1Ci II TAIJTC
reed eggjneering
Channel Slope Evaluation GROUP
Protect No. 12783
Andy Brown East Park
Date: 11 -09 -05 Coppell, Texas Location: See Plate 1
DEPTH,
feet
DESCRIPTIVE
SYMBOLS
DESCRIPTION OF STRATA
Pocket Penetrometer Readings
Tons Per Sq. Ft.
Standard Penetration Tests
Blows per Foot
ELEVATION
(feet)
SAMPL
REC.
/K 1 2 3 4 4.5+ 4.5
4 10 20 30 40 50 60
5
i0-
15-
20-
25-
30-
ri
I
I
CLAY, dark brown 0 gray, stiff to
medium stiff, w /calcareous particles
0 trace of ironstone fragments
(Fill) (CL)
iw a
eri eve
1•C
1•C
o,
Blows
Blows
n 1 1
o 5
2 1/2
1 -1/2
n
inc,es
€s
99.6
96.1
92.6-
85.6-
79.6
/I
SILTY CLAY, gray 0
brownish yellow, medium stiff,
w /some fine sand
(Fill) (CL)
1 f
ra
CLAY, olive -yellow 0 light gray,
Y 9 9 Y
very stiff, w /trace of calcareous
particles 0 nodules, slightly fissile
(severely weathered shale) (CH)
SHALE, dark gray, soft, w /silt
laminations
Total Depth 20 feet
Water 3' after 2 minutes. Water 2' 5
blocked 6 -1/2' on 11- 11 -05.
BORING LOG B 1 PLATE 2
rrn— •u.irrAI rnkici II TAAITC
UNDISTURBED
(Shelby Tube
NX -Core)
DISTURBED
STANDARD
PENETRATION
TEST
THD CONE
PENETROMETER
TEST
KEYS TO SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS
reed enaineerin
reed engineering
GROUP
FAA
Flu SILT (MH)
(LL >50)
v 0
O C
0
n
a
LAM P.
MEM
lsyw
1
V Water level at time of drilling.
Fill
1 Subsequent water level and date.
Type of Fill
CLAY (CL)
(LL <50)
CLAY (CH)
(LL >50)
SILT (ML)
(LL<50)
CLAYEY SAND
(SC)
SILTY SAND
(SM)
SAND
(SP -SW)
CLAYEY GRAVEL
(GC)
GRAVEL
(GP -GW)
(weathered)
SHALE
(unweathered)
(weathered)
LIMESTONE
(unweathered)
(weathered)
SANDSTONE
(unweathered)
PLATE 5
GEOTECFNICAL CONSULTANTS
COHESIONLESS SOILS
SPT
N- Values Relative
(blows /foot) Density
0 4 Very Loose
4 -10 Loose
10 -30 Medium Dense
30 -50 Dense
50 Very Dense
HARDNESS
Very Soft
Soft
Moderately Hard
Hard
SOIL PROPERTIES
ROCK PROPERTIES
COHESIVE SOILS
Pocket
Penetrometer
(T.S.F.) Consistency
<0.25 Very Soft
0.25 -0.50 Soft
0.50 -1.00 Medium Stiff
1.00 -2.00 Stiff
2.00 -4.00 Very Stiff
4.00 Hard
DEGREE OF WEATHERING DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES
reed engineering
GROUP
DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES
Can be dented with moderate finger pressure.
Can be scratched easily with fingernail.
Can be scratched easily with knife but not with fingernail.
Can be scratched with knife with some difficulty; can be broken by light to moderate
hammer blow.
Very Hard Cannot be scratched with knife; can be broken by repeated heavy hammer blows.
Slightly Weathered Slight discoloration inwards from open fractures.
Weathered Discoloration throughout; weaker minerals decomposed; strength somewhat less
than fresh rock; structure preserved.
Severely Weathered Most minerals somewhat decomposes; much softer than fresh rock; texture becoming
indistinct but fabric and structure preserved.
Completely Weathered Minerals decomposed to soil; rock fabric and structure destroyed (residual soil).
KEY TO DESCRIPTIVE TERMS ON BORING LOGS
PLATE 6
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CHANNEL SLOPE EVALUATION
ANDY BROWN EAST PARK
COPPELL, TEXAS
Summary of Classification and Index Property Tests
B -1 0.0 1.5 19.4 4,640
1.5 3.0 19.0 31 13 18 1,450
3.0 4.5 21.6 1,050
4.5 6.0 15.4 27 12 15 1,180
9.0 10.0 31.0 88 31 57 5,520
14.0 15.0 19.3 22,190
B -2 0.0 1.5 16.9 3,640
2.0 3.5 27.9 66 26 40 7,660
5.0 6.5 17.2 26 13 13 3,100
8.0 9.0 13.9 1,100 56
13.5 14.5 32.9 59 24 35 4,980
B -3 0.0 1.5 10.8 37 16 21 99,840
2.0 3.5 27.3 57 21 36 11,330
6.0 7.0 15.5 4,040
10.0 11.0 14.2 37 15 22 3,880
13.0 14.0 34.7 3,430
REEL] Ef1G1 r1EE R1r1 G
Total Percent
Moisture Liquid Plastic Plasticity Soil Passing
Boring Depth Content Limit Limit Index Suction No. 200
No. (feet) _e/( (PI) (psf) Sieve
G R O L i I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PLATE 7
Job No. 12783
Boring No. B -1
Depth 4.5' -6.0'
Normal Load (ksf)
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
1.50 3.00 6.00
Cohesion
c (ksf)
Friction
Angle, 0,
(degrees)
Peak 0.00 0
Residual 0.00 0
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR TEST
1=1 ED Er1 Ir1EE 1=i1r1E
G Ia0 LJ P
4
3.5
0.5
Point 3
Point 2
Point 1
0
10 20 30 40
Shear Displacemnt
50
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
00 05 10 15 20 25 3.0 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Normal Load (ksf)
70
Peak
Residual
PLATE 8
Job No. 12783
Boring No. B -2
Depth 5' -7'
Normal Load (ksf)
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
1.50 3.00 6.00
Cohesion
c ks
Peak 0.00 0
Residual 0.00
Friction
Angle, 0,
(degrees)
0
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 6.0 65
Normal Load (ksf)
70
Peak
Residual
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR TEST
A EED E 1 I rl E Rir
G FR O LJ
3.5
0.5
00 01
Shear Displacemnt (in.)
Point 3
Point 2
Point 1
oint 1
(Residual)
02 03
PLATE 9
Job No. 12783
Boring No. B -2
Depth 13.5' -15.0'
Normal Load (ksf)
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
1.94
3.88 7.76
Cohesion
c (ksf)
Friction
Angle, 0,
(degrees)
Peak 0.00 0
Residual 0.00
0
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Normal Load (ksf)
80
Peak
Residual
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR TEST
REEL] Eft Ir1EEa' Si
3.5
0.5
Point
oint
Point
3
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Shear Displacemnt
PLATE 10
X 01 c
c o O
R 7
CO
O W
O O cn
C C
N
U
c
W
�i
0
0
N
N
CO
c
C
0
CO
l0
t
C.)
'E y
C lL
V 63
0 C N C
0)itvO�
�n o
0 0
111111
11
I0
0
�n o to
rn rn co
oo LO rn 03
co
0
0
O
PLATE 11
X
1— 00 C 0 ol
ti
of CV 7 N m
!6 CO
W
0
O
2 co
o m
Cl C
C ea
0)
U
c
W
0
N
CL m
O
0
O
O
m
I
f0
al
c
m
O
O
LL
m
0
O
0
0
a
(0
0
2
0
O
CO
N
0
m
r
T
N
0
T
c
m
m
O
N
O
1)
N
N
l6
L
(5
L
O
0
O
co
L
m
O
O
I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I IIIIII III
O
O
�n 0 0
rn rn co
rn
0
rn
III1 1 1
co
0
0
r
O
O
M
O
_0
N
O
0
PLATE 12
0)
0
LL
co O 0 N
N rnm
co N m
co z
To �p N
w co
CL G
0
0
Gl
C
C
L
ce
U
O
d
7
Q-0
a
0
0 rn rn co
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lo
0
0
0
rn
III
Cr)
III
co
0
M
LL
—0
PLATE 13
H C O M
r Q m
03 j N m
CI W c
m
a 0
7 0
2
O To
o) c
c c
cu
d) L
c U
5)
c
w
N
c
U
E
E. o
co o
0
O
0
O
O
O
nr
nr
5
of
c
'c
N
O
N
0
0
N
a
U
O
O
N
O
an
N
U
2
U
O
CO
N
0
O
N
U
T
-o
c
0,
0 0
N
N
0
1)
O
a)
0
c•)
x
VIII II II
0
0
o Lc) o an
O) 6) co
1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
rn
0
rn
IIII
PLATE 14